The Black Panthers And The Right To Bear Arms
Options
dan_the_man.com
Members Posts: 701
The founding fathers of the modern “gun rights” movement in America was…the Black Panthers ?? Yes, or so the Atlantic argues in an interesting piece on the twisted, tangled history of firearm ownership in America:
The Ku Klux ? , Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement? The Black Panthers. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement. On the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento 30 young black men and women [arrived] carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols. The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.”
Opposition to gun control as what drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity. In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police.
Inspired by the teachings of Malcolm X, Newton and Seale decided to fight back. Before he was assassinated in 1965, Malcolm X had preached against Martin Luther King Jr.’s brand of nonviolent resistance. Because the government was “either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property” of blacks, he said, they had to defend themselves “by whatever means necessary.” Malcolm X illustrated the idea for Ebony magazine by posing for photographs in suit and tie, peering out a window with an M-1 carbine semiautomatic in hand. Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms. “Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”
The Pathers’ efforts provoked an immediate backlash. Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”
Comments
-
Yo can u post the link to this article b?
I support gun control btw, in fact sometimes I wish I lived in one of those countries like Norway where there are like 2 guns per 1000 people -
Interesting, I didn't know this.
-
-
-
and yet, ironically, the average black voter is not electing politicians who will defend their gun rights.dan_the_man.com wrote: »The founding fathers of the modern “gun rights” movement in America was…the Black Panthers ?? Yes, or so the Atlantic argues in an interesting piece on the twisted, tangled history of firearm ownership in America:
...get the ? outJonas.dini wrote: »I support gun control btw, in fact sometimes I wish I lived in one of those countries like Norway where there are like 2 guns per 1000 people
also, Norway has something like the 10th or 11th most heavily-armed civilians, with about 31 guns per 100 people, so there's that as well. if you believe those kinds of surveys, anyway. -
and yet, ironically, the average black voter is not electing politicians who will defend their gun rights.
...get the ? out
also, Norway has something like the 10th or 11th most heavily-armed civilians, with about 31 guns per 100 people, so there's that as well. if you believe those kinds of surveys, anyway.
Ha I just made that 2 per 1000 stat up -
I don't believe in gun 'rights'. I could theoretically be persuaded that lessening gun control is necessary because it prevents many people from being able to defend themselves (or even having the option of a usually convenient/painless, if not foolproof, method of suicide) but anyone's possessing something as dangerous as a gun is a community concern, since your owning a gun can negatively affect other people, it is their business.
-
I don't believe in gun 'rights'. I could theoretically be persuaded that lessening gun control is necessary because it prevents many people from being able to defend themselves (or even having the option of a usually convenient/painless, if not foolproof, method of suicide) but anyone's possessing something as dangerous as a gun is a community concern, since your owning a gun can negatively affect other people, it is their business.
And at the same time, I could go ahead and guess that most people who use guns irresponsibly and in harmful ways are those who don't have gun permits. So I doubt that taking away gun rights and enforcing gun control would have a significant effect on gun crime. Taking away gun rights and enforcing gun control would have a bigger impact on preventing responsible people from owning guns to defend themselves and their families from "criminals". It's these "criminals" who illegally own and use guns that will continue to illegally own and use guns regardless. They probably wouldnt even be able to get a gun permit if they tried due to the qualifications for getting. I think that it would be much more progressive, for one example, to take New York's initiative and have a very harsh sentences for the illegal possession of guns. Though some might argue that that would be unconstitutional. But desperate times call for "martial law". -
that's what you get for loving Norway so muchJonas.dini wrote: »Ha I just made that 2 per 1000 stat up
you can own many things that can "negatively affect other people," so at what point do we draw the line...but anyone's possessing something as dangerous as a gun is a community concern, since your owning a gun can negatively affect other people, it is their business. -
Great Post... Wild Wild West... Support my Peoples to the MAX... HARD KNOCK LIFE
-
And at the same time, I could go ahead and guess that most people who use guns irresponsibly and in harmful ways are those who don't have gun permits. So I doubt that taking away gun rights and enforcing gun control would have a significant effect on gun crime. Taking away gun rights and enforcing gun control would have a bigger impact on preventing responsible people from owning guns to defend themselves and their families from "criminals". It's these "criminals" who illegally own and use guns that will continue to illegally own and use guns regardless. They probably wouldnt even be able to get a gun permit if they tried due to the qualifications for getting. I think that it would be much more progressive, for one example, to take New York's initiative and have a very harsh sentences for the illegal possession of guns. Though some might argue that that would be unconstitutional. But desperate times call for "martial law".
I agree! Taking away the right to bear arms from the responsible people only leaves them unable to defend themselves. It doesn't take away the crime! -
Being able to truly defend your self is true freedom. The fact that blacks are armed is the main reason we arent slaved or in internment camps now. Protect yourself.
