"Negroes With Guns" Documentary


PDA






Cosmoline
February 20, 2006, 12:12 AM
This looks interesting. I suspect it will descend into the usual anti-gun nonsense but the story is certainly an interesting one from an RKBA standpoint. William's later links with the communists mirror connections between the Black Panthers and Maoists. It seems pretty clear in hindsight that the communists had less than zero interest in civil rights, but saw the struggle as an opportunity for propaganda. He was also a proud NRA member, and his self defense rifle club never actually had to kill anyone. The threat of dozens of black men with rifles was enough to keep the klan at bay, until bogus charges drove Williams into Castro's all too willing embrace.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

If you enjoyed reading about ""Negroes With Guns" Documentary" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Optical Serenity
February 20, 2006, 12:32 AM
Thanks for the heads up...I'll have to try to remember to watch it.

gunsmith
February 20, 2006, 12:32 AM
that it was the Dem's who founded the KKK. & it was radical Republicans who armed the ex slaves.
and that idjit m moore has everyone believing that the NRA and the klan are synonymous, when the NRA was founded by Union officers.
http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/filmimgs/negroswithguns1.jpg

IndianaDean
February 20, 2006, 12:40 AM
Don't forget the NRA was the first organization in the US to allow any race, sex or creed to join.

KriegHund
February 20, 2006, 12:48 AM
Yeah, ive always found it ironic that republicans are synonymous with rascists when it was the democrats who tried to keep the slaves and were the worst rascists.

But parties change.

gunner03
February 20, 2006, 01:00 AM
Don't forget the NRA was the first organization in the US to allow any race, sex or creed to join.
How can that be??? mr.mooron distinctly tells us that the NRA was formed the same year the Klan was outlawed. It was exclusively made up of Klan members with no place else to go......That was one of the dumbest movies ever. Being outlawed it is amazing how often they show up without getting arrested.

Maxwell
February 20, 2006, 01:53 AM
But parties change.

Sometimes I wonder.
The Dems certianly arnt interested in arming people equally, theyve got curious ways to interpret the constitution, and their idea of "depend on the state" can only lead to a repeat of what took place in the 60's and 70's for some other group of Americans. Of the nations that mirror the lefts ideals, several are in turmoil or bankrupt... Is this what we're supposed to want?

Maybe Im stubborn, but it takes more than a few photo ops and slogans to make me believe any parties actially changed its stripes.

“That there is no law here, there is no need to take the white attackers to the courts because they will go free and that the federal government is not coming to the aid of people who are oppressed, and it is time for Negro men to stand up and be men and if it is necessary for us to die we must be willing to die. If it is necessary for us to kill we must be willing to kill.”

I might not agree with all Williams may have said, he makes many good points. A weapon is no good without the intent to use it. Intent is no good without a tool to enable it.

Had him and many others not been armed, I wonder how far the KKK might have gone?

crashm1
February 20, 2006, 02:00 AM
I saw it last week and found it pretty balanced. I was pleasantly suprised.

boofus
February 20, 2006, 06:58 AM
Not only was the NRA founded by Union officers, some of the presidents and founders were quite decorated individuals that actually bled and faced death for the rights of black people.

Can fatass moore claim that? How dare he libel true American heros that put everything including their lives on the line for the Republic and the rights of black people.

Case 1: Ambrose Burnside, 1st president of the NRA fought for the Republic at Antietam, one of the bloodiest battles of the American Civil War.

Case 2: Winfield Scott Hancock commanded Union forces at Williamsburg, Antietam, Fredericksburg and Gettysburg. At Gettysburg he got shot and then hit by artillery and ended up having to remove a bullet and an iron nail from his leg after having a tourniquet applied. Keep in mind at that time medical care and hygiene were atrocious. A serious wound like that was virtually a death sentence. Can lardass moore or ANY of the race pimps in the CONFEDERATE(democrat) party side claim to have put that much on the line for black people's rights?

Case 3: General and President Ulysses S Grant. Everyone except a democrat would have learned about him in grade school history class.

How dare he slander the names of those heroes by claiming they were associated with the KKK. If I was a descendant of any of those Civil War heroes I would sue that propagandist pig for every cent he suckered people out of with his 'documentaries'.

mbs357
February 20, 2006, 07:11 AM
For the sake of proof, does anyone have any good articles about this?
Specifically about the NRA being founded by the Union, and the Democrats founding the KKK?

boofus
February 20, 2006, 07:13 AM
Easy, go to www.google.com and do a search for
"ambrose burnside NRA"
"winfield scott hancock NRA"
"ulysses s grant NRA"

As for democrats founding the KKK. Which party was solidly in control of the confederacy, ante- and post-bellum south at the time? The democrat states in the south all said if a REPUBLICAN president, namely Abe Lincoln was elected they would all secede. John Wilkes Booth, presidential assassin, plus all his co-conspirators were democrat. 'nuff said.

All these facts don't speak very highly for the intelligence or education level of blacks that insist on voting democrat and believing the lies of al sharpton, jesse jackson, or michael moore.

crazed_ss
February 20, 2006, 07:28 AM
So as a black person, I'm unintelligent because I dont vote for your party?
:rolleyes:
And what lies are you talking about when it comes to Sharpton or Jackson?
Specific examples please.

boofus
February 20, 2006, 07:32 AM
As a black person you are unintelligent if you claim the Democrats represent and support black people given their previous history of seceding from the United States so they can keep black people as property, founding the KKK, passing Jim Crow laws, murdering civil rights workers. lynching blacks, standing in the schoolhouse door to uphold segregation, filibustering civil rights laws (grand cyclops Robert KKK Byrd is guess what? a democrat) and committing sedition and open rebellion against the Republic in the name of slavery.

As for sharpton and jackson, just let them get on one of their anti-republican rants and how democrats 'feel their pain'. :rolleyes:

I bet the plantation masters also 'felt their pain' when they pulled out the whips to keep the slaves in line.

mbs357
February 20, 2006, 07:40 AM
Easy, go to www.google.com and do a search for
"ambrose burnside NRA"
"winfield scott hancock NRA"
"ulysses s grant NRA"

As for democrats founding the KKK. Which party was solidly in control of the confederacy, ante- and post-bellum south at the time? The democrat states in the south all said if a REPUBLICAN president, namely Abe Lincoln was elected they would all secede. John Wilkes Booth, presidential assassin, plus all his co-conspirators were democrat. 'nuff said.

All these facts don't speak very highly for the intelligence or education level of blacks that insist on voting democrat and believing the lies of al sharpton, jesse jackson, or michael moore.
Thank you, sir.

crazed_ss
February 20, 2006, 07:44 AM
As a black person you are unintelligent if you claim the Democrats represent and support black people given their previous history of seceding from the United States to keep slavery alive, founding the KKK, passing Jim Crow laws, murdering civil rights workers. lynching blacks, standing in the schoolhouse door to uphold segregation. filibustering civil rights laws (grand cyclops Robert KKK Byrd is guess what? a democrat) and committing sedition and open rebellion against the Republic in the name of slavery.

As for sharpton and jackson, just let them get on one of their anti-republican rants and how democrats 'feel their pain'. :rolleyes:

I bet the plantation masters also 'felt their pain' when they pulled out the whips to keep the slaves in line.

Democrat... Republican... those are just titles and dont mean much.
The democrats of old are not the same as the democrats of today. Likewise with the Republicans.

MechAg94
February 20, 2006, 09:11 AM
I don't think the Dems founded the KKK. I do think the two groups use to be the same thing in some locations, but I don't know if I would say they were the same. Certainly not these days. The Democrat Party, as a whole, did support segregation and other anti-minority stuff. Thankfully, they don't do that anymore. Whether the Dems' current policies truly help minorities now is another debate I think.

Who mentioned Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? I missed that.

All that aside, everyone should pursue gun ownership and their RKBA.

bogie
February 20, 2006, 09:18 AM
Sharpton and Jackson would be unemployed (and unemployable...) and broke if many of their followers quit looking at themselves as "victims," and started trying to be successful. We've got too many people who are content to sit at home and whine about how they're "victims," and how they "want" stuff, but they don't have enough energy to go out and work for it.

"Yessir, Mr. Businessman. If you contribute $100,000 to our fund, we'll be very appreciative (and we won't picket you)." Ask to look at those follows' books... Especially as they're "churches."

Clue bat: "The Man" did not invent the concept of "readin', writin' and 'rithmatic." Being functionally illiterate is a bad thing.

crazed_ss
February 20, 2006, 09:27 AM
Examples of these "followers" not working and simply claiming to be victims?

U.S.SFC_RET
February 20, 2006, 09:36 AM
I might disagree on a few issues with williams but I have total respect for him sticking up for his rights. How would you like to live in a country where you suffer from discrimination all of the time still today. White priviledge you bet. Take a black friend you and him dress similar and go to various stores and see who gets asked "do you need any assistance". This country has a long way to go.

bogie
February 20, 2006, 09:37 AM
Howzabout the folks in New Orleans, who were "victimized" at the dome, who couldn't get up the gumption to walk about 4 miles or so to where help was?

There were enough able bodied folks there to assist others. If they would...

Hollowdweller
February 20, 2006, 09:40 AM
In the past the Republicans were the party of Honest Abe, the the Dems were the party of Segregation.

However LBJ predicted the loss of the South when he signed Civil Rights legislation.

After they saw how many votes George Wallace got with his independant run the GOP instituted their "Southern Strategy" to try to bring that constituency in. They were successful because so many wanted to believe blacks were recipients of special government largesse, rather than a disproportionate amount of prison cells and death sentences.

Back to the show. I thought it was really good. I was glad to see after his long journey that he finally got to go back to his home.

Hollowdweller
February 20, 2006, 09:44 AM
Howzabout the folks in New Orleans, who were "victimized" at the dome, who couldn't get up the gumption to walk about 4 miles or so to where help was?


Yeah, how about those folks in the old folks home who drowned? They shoulda got right out of those wheelchairs and walked to safety.:neener:

There were people who tried to get out from what I read and the cops wouldn't let them out.

TexasRifleman
February 20, 2006, 09:46 AM
The Democrat Party, as a whole, did support segregation and other anti-minority stuff. Thankfully, they don't do that anymore. Whether the Dems' current policies truly help minorities now is another debate I think.

All that aside, everyone should pursue gun ownership and their RKBA.

Did you read what you just wrote?

The Democrats DO support racial inequality, and your advice to pursue gun ownership and RKBA is exactly where the Dems are racist.

The successful attempts to stop the sale of lower cost firearms, especially in urban areas, is an EXTREMELY racist thing to do.

You have to now live in the suburbs and have a higher income level to be able to afford a gun to protect yourself.

You can forget having an NFA item at all in most cases, even though the thugs doing drive bys have any number of illegal automatic weapons.
Defend yourself on an equal footing? Forget that....

Where do we see a high crime rate and little fighting back from the population? Urban areas, where the law abiding citizens cannot buy low cost guns for protection but the criminals have all they can use.

No, that's not racial equality in my book. Not by a long shot.

crazed_ss
February 20, 2006, 10:07 AM
Howzabout the folks in New Orleans, who were "victimized" at the dome, who couldn't get up the gumption to walk about 4 miles or so to where help was?

There were enough able bodied folks there to assist others. If they would...

I wasnt there so I cant pass judgement.
From what I saw on TV.......
It looked like a giant chaotic disaster area with no organization whatsoever. There were lots of children and eldery also. I'm sure if those people knew where the help was or if help was actually available, they would have taken advantage of it.

MechAg94
February 20, 2006, 11:06 AM
Did you read what you just wrote?

The Democrats DO support racial inequality, and your advice to pursue gun ownership and RKBA is exactly where the Dems are racist.

The successful attempts to stop the sale of lower cost firearms, especially in urban areas, is an EXTREMELY racist thing to do.

You have to now live in the suburbs and have a higher income level to be able to afford a gun to protect yourself.

You can forget having an NFA item at all in most cases, even though the thugs doing drive bys have any number of illegal automatic weapons.
Defend yourself on an equal footing? Forget that....

Where do we see a high crime rate and little fighting back from the population? Urban areas, where the law abiding citizens cannot buy low cost guns for protection but the criminals have all they can use.

No, that's not racial equality in my book. Not by a long shot.

Like I said, the past stuff is one thing, the current stuff is another debate altogether. If you mix the two arguments, we could be here all day long. :) I don't disagree with you, I just didn't want to get into it on this thread since it started out talking about what happened 40 or 50 years ago.

TexasRifleman
February 20, 2006, 11:11 AM
Like I said, the past stuff is one thing, the current stuff is another debate altogether. If you mix the two arguments, we could be here all day long. :) I don't disagree with you, I just didn't want to get into it on this thread since it started out talking about what happened 40 or 50 years ago.


True they are a different debate, but the result still seems to be the same.

But you are right, it's a different thread.... :D

MechAg94
February 20, 2006, 11:29 AM
As far as the Katrina stuff, I think the main thing you can blame those people for is for who they voted into office. The local and state leadership was pretty poor over there. Even if the Feds had ignored them completely, they should have been able to do better than they did. They contributed to the problems.

LMC
February 20, 2006, 11:42 AM
As far as jackson and sharpton,all they want is something for nothing and for people to feel sorry for others who don't want to help themselves.:cuss:

lostone1413
February 20, 2006, 12:01 PM
Anyone who thinks that Lincon was in favor of race mixing should reread history. Same goes for anyone who thinks the civil war was over slavery. The civil war was over states rights. Then was the start of the death of the Republic when the North won.
Far as Jackson He is a carpet bagger. Look at a couple years ago the big stink he was making about budwiser not hiring and promoting enough blacks. That lasted until his kid became a distributor for Bud. Jackson is as racist as anyone in the KKK.

roscoe
February 20, 2006, 12:02 PM
Bogie is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to start. Bogie, if you have such a simplistic understanding of politics to think that blacks don't understand the value of Jackson or Sharpton the way that right-wingers make use of Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan, then you need to take a closer look. Both sides have loud, obnoxious, saber-rattlers to get the loyal frothy, but who actually serve as foils for the people who get things done.

Do you want to have to defend every right-wing clinic-bomber or racist fundamentalist preacher? Then don't simply pull Jackson and Sharpton out as if they somehow are the only representatives of black america.

Jackson is as racist as anyone in the KKK.
Perhaps you are confused - racism and corruption are different.

lostone1413
February 20, 2006, 12:42 PM
Not one bit confused. People like Jackson have made a fortune doing everything then can to convince Blacks that all their troubles are because of evil White Man How do you define a racist?

asknight
February 20, 2006, 01:05 PM
Not one bit confused. People like Jackson have made a fortune doing everything then can to convince Blacks that all their troubles are because of evil White Man How do you define a racist?

+1

crazed_ss, Please don't tell us that you believe everything you see and hear on TV.

Also, any person no matter their color will get my assistance and help whether they're dressed the same as other colors of people or not.... as long as they're respectably dressed and not looking like some thuggy gangbanger. Simple enough.

Many of you think that "respect" is one of your Constitutionally protected rights, and you're wrong.

progunner1957
February 20, 2006, 01:10 PM
Yeah, ive always found it ironic that republicans are synonymous with rascists Nothing more than propaganda that the leftist/liberal/socialist political movement (aka Democrat party) has been pimping for decades...:barf:
mr.mooron distinctly tells us that the NRA was formed the same year the Klan was outlawed. It was exclusively made up of Klan members with no place else to goJabba the Moore is a POS that will tell any lie that (he hopes) will further his Demosocialist political agenda and put a few more million in his deep pockets.

He has proven himself over and over again to be a pathalogical liar and a hater of the Constitution and all that the American flag stands for.

Cosmoline
February 20, 2006, 01:18 PM
Howzabout the folks in New Orleans, who were "victimized" at the dome, who couldn't get up the gumption to walk about 4 miles or so to where help was?

Somebody never bothered to read the post-Katrina accounts posted on this very forum.

Boogie--folks who had the "gumption" to try to walk out on the dry freeways were turned back by armed LEO's who refused to let them into their parishes, and weren't afraid to block an interstate highway to keep the refugees out.

But on another related note, the mythical reports of "snipers" and Mogadishu-like warlords in NOLA after the flood provided another excellent example of the deep fear the nation has of armed blacks. The really weird thing is these myths were spread by a lot of local officials who were also black. To understand the support many blacks have for anti-RKBA positions, you have to understand that they have the same prejudices whites have, perhaps even moreso. Nobody fears and armed black man as much as another black man.

MechAg94
February 20, 2006, 01:43 PM
I have called myself a Republican before and consider myself to be conservative, but I don't claim any association whatsoever with Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson. Neither of them represent me or speak for me.

I am sure a lot of people feel the same way about Jackson and Sharpton, but I don't get that impression when I see them on the news. Everyone has to figure that out for themselves I guess.

roscoe
February 20, 2006, 02:09 PM
Howzabout the folks in New Orleans, who were "victimized" at the dome, who couldn't get up the gumption to walk about 4 miles or so to where help was?
This really is an outrageously ill-informed statement.

hso
February 20, 2006, 02:21 PM
A little history on the beginnings of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin.

The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

During the Civil War, against the advice of his cabinet, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of their day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

hso
February 20, 2006, 02:27 PM
And now the Democratic party beginnings.

The Democratic party began to assume its modern form during the intense political conflict that divided Americans after the War of 1812. Over the next decade, as the party's organization developed, Democrats argued that they were combating Federalist efforts to impose an aristocratic, centralized government on the American people. The conflict between centralizers and egalitarians, Democrats declared, went back to the Hamiltonian efforts in the 1790s to erect a powerful national authority, threatening to individual liberties.

These Democrats, unlike their Jeffersonian predecessors, accepted the inevitability and legitimacy of popular political conflict and believed that political parties were the best means to handle that conflict. Although the Democrats did not originate conventions, platforms, and highly institutionalized campaigning, they brought these features of the party system to a new level. The leaders of this organizational revolution were Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, and a few others.

There was plenty to stimulate their efforts. Regional, ethnoreligious, and economic fault lines ran throughout American society, dividing Democrats from Whigs. The core of the Democratic party's support lay in southern slave plantations, farms of all sizes in every part of the nation, and immigrants in the urban centers of the eastern seaboard. Whigs also drew support from these groups and from the commercial classes throughout the nation (a group that also included some Democratic supporters). What distinguished the parties were their cultural and ideological perspectives. Democrats tended to be drawn from the "outsider" groups in Anglo-Saxon society: the Scots-Irish, Presbyterians, and other nonconforming religious and ethnic groups, who had long been in conflict with the dominant groups in the British Isles. They feared a powerful government and were hostile to the aggressive commercialism of the dominant Anglo-Saxons.

All this gave the Democrats the air of an egalitarian party challenging the nation's ruling elite. The role played by the party's leader, Andrew Jackson, in these efforts differed from earlier ideas of political leadership. He conveyed, by words and deeds, a few simple truths about republican purity and democratic striving and served as the symbol of a Democratic crusade against greed, unfairness, and the domination of a manipulative elite.

By the presidential election of 1836, the Democrats had developed an effective national organization. Thereafter, they moved beyond mere organization and created a powerful partisan culture, energetically cultivated by armies of party activists. By 1840, voters were surging to the polls in unprecedented numbers, and they continued to do so in subsequent elections. The Democrats were the primary advocates of this new culture, and their constituents reacted with almost religious fervor. Democrats worshiped, it was said, at "the shrine of party." It was indispensable, its members believed, to everything that went on in American politics.

From the mid-1830s to the Civil War, the Democrats were the nation's majority party, usually controlling Congress, the presidency, and many state offices. But they suffered their first significant disruption in the electoral realignment of the mid-1850s. A surge of Irish and German Catholic immigration provoked powerful reactions among many northern Democrats, as well as Whigs. Fears for the future of the "Protestant nation" led to the creation of the Know-Nothing party, which drew much support from Democrats. At the same time, the unwillingness of many Democratic leaders to take a stand against slavery was increasingly seen as a prosouthern position that unfairly permitted slaveholders to prevail in more and more of the nation's territories and to dominate national policy when Democrats were in power. This resentment of the South grew out of a succession of party decisions that, by accommodating increasingly aggressive slaveholder demands, sought to maintain both party and national cohesion. A new Republican party shrewdly played on the nativism and antisouthern sentiment to build a movement to resist southern and Catholic "assaults" on the American nation. The result was a significant political realignment.

The Democrats' second important era lasted from the Civil War into the 1890s. The party of Grover Cleveland and Samuel J. Tilden echoed the antigovernment rhetoric of the Jacksonians. After stumbling badly during the Civil War when one segment of the party advocated making peace with the Confederacy, the Democrats returned to national competitiveness. Partisan loyalties, planted in the 1840s and nourished by the events of the 1850s and the Civil War, kept thousands faithful in election after election. In the aftermath of war and Reconstruction, southern whites who had not been Democrats earlier now came over in massive numbers. The Solid (Democratic) South became a major feature of the American political landscape in the last years of the nineteenth century. But the Democrats' persistent immigrant and Catholic aura and their toleration of the most reactionary elements in the South were significant barriers to any improvement in the party's national situation.

The Democrats lost electoral ground once again in the 1890s when, under the leadership of William Jennings Bryan, the old rural and southern-western core of the party recaptured its egalitarian ethos. The Bryanites reiterated familiar themes about the unfair manipulation of government power for the benefit of a selfish industrial elite dominating the Republican party, as its forebears had dominated the Federalists and Whigs. At the same time, Bryanites were more willing than their party ancestors to use government power to restore balance within the system, especially to help the commercialagricultural sector sinking under a worldwide price depression. They coupled this, however, with an antiurbanism that seemed hostile to the other core Democratic constituencies—immigrants and Catholics. The latter were growing in numbers and importance. Not all the urban political machines that developed from the 1850s onward were Democratic, but a significant number were. They brought renewed vigor to the party's electioneering and organization and attracted new voters to the polls. They were repelled by Bryan's parochial echoing of the past, the nature of his policies, and his denunciations of them. Their lack of support for the Bryanites lay behind the party's reverses in the decade after the 1896 election.

What was most significant about the Democrats' rise to importance was its approach to government power. Urban Democrats remained traditionally suspicious of the use of government authority to enforce conformity in such matters as prohibition, a particular school curriculum, or the promotion of a distinct brand of Americanism. But, like the Bryan wing, they believed that government could have a benign function, such as maintaining decent living conditions and providing direct help to those in need—in short, dealing with the dislocations caused by the industrial and urban revolutions.

hso
February 20, 2006, 02:32 PM
And for the idiots that will make any BS up to serve their predjudice.

The original Ku Klux Klan was created in 1865 meeting in a law office by six Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee. The name was fake Greek. It was, at first, a humorous social club centering on practical jokes and hazing rituals.[1] From 1866 to 1867, various local units began breaking up black prayer meetings and invading black homes at night to steal firearms. Some of these activities may have been modeled on previous Tennessee vigilante groups such as the Yellow Jackets and Redcaps.

In an 1867 convention held in Nashville, the Klan was formalized as a national organization under a "Prescript" written by George Gordon, a former Confederate brigadier general. The Prescript states as the Klan's purposes:[2]
First: To protect the weak, the innocent, and the defenseless from the indignities, wrongs and outrages of the lawless, the violent and the brutal; to relieve the injured and oppressed; to succor the suffering and unfortunate, and especially the widows and orphans of the Confederate soldiers.
Second: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...
Third: To aid and assist in the execution of all constitutional laws, and to protect the people from unlawful seizure, and from trial except by their peers in conformity with the laws of the land.
In a word, the Klan's purpose was to resist the Congressional Reconstruction. The word "oppressed," for example, clearly refers to oppression by the Union Army, and "peers" implies that white Southern property holders should be protected from carpetbaggers, scalawags, and "uppity" freedmen. During Reconstruction, the South was undergoing drastic changes to its social and political life. Southern Whites saw this as a threat to their supremacy as a race and sought to end this process.


Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate General; later, first Grand Wizard of the first Klan
The Prescript also includes a list of questions to be asked of applicants for membership, which confirms the focus on resisting Reconstruction and the Republican Party. The applicant is to be asked whether he was a Republican, a Union Army veteran, or a member of the Loyal League; whether he is "opposed to Negro equality both social and political;" and whether he is in favor of "a white man's government," "maintaining the constitutional rights of the South," "the reenfranchisement and emancipation of the white men of the South, and the restitution of the Southern people to all their rights," and "the inalienable right of self-preservation of the people against the exercise of arbitrary and unlicensed power."
According to one oral report, Gordon went to former slave trader and Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest in Memphis and told him about the new organization, and, a few weeks later, Forrest was selected as Grand Wizard, the Klan's national leader.

gunsmith
February 20, 2006, 02:37 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a5/Kkk-carpetbagger-cartoon.jpg/200px-Kkk-carpetbagger-cartoon.jpg
A cartoon threatening that the KKK would lynch carpetbaggers, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, Independent Monitor, 1868.
the donkey the original democrat symbol.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/Anti-kkk-cartoon.jpg/180px-Anti-kkk-cartoon.jpgA political cartoon depicting the KKK and the Democratic Party as continuations of the Confederacy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/NathanBedfordForrest.jpg
Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate General; later, first Grand Wizard of the first Klan...The Klan sought to control the political and social status of the freedmen. Specifically, it attempted to curb black education, economic advancement, voting rights, and the right to bear arms. However, the Klan's focus was not limited to African Americans; Scalawags and Carpetbaggers (white Republicans) also became the target of intimidation tactics, and a wave of killing of hundreds of blacks in 1868, was primarily a political purge rather than a racial conflict. In some cases the violence achieved its purpose; in other counties the intimidation failed. The Republicans, organized Union Leagues, created their own armed defensive squads and fought back. Probably thousands were killed on both sides.

An 1868 proclamation by Gordon[3] demonstrates several of the issues surrounding the Klan's violent activities.

Many blacks were veterans of the Union Army, and were armed. From the beginning, one of the original Klan's strongest focuses was on confiscating firearms from Blacks. In the proclamation, Gordon warned that the Klan had been "fired into three times," and that if the Blacks "make war upon us they must abide by the awful retribution that will follow."

spooney
February 20, 2006, 02:38 PM
Anyone who thinks that Lincon was in favor of race mixing should reread history. Same goes for anyone who thinks the civil war was over slavery. The civil war was over states rights. Then was the start of the death of the Republic when the North won.
Far as Jackson He is a carpet bagger. Look at a couple years ago the big stink he was making about budwiser not hiring and promoting enough blacks. That lasted until his kid became a distributor for Bud. Jackson is as racist as anyone in the KKK.


Yes it was over state's rights. The state's right to decide whether or not to allow slavery in their state.

Malone LaVeigh
February 20, 2006, 02:49 PM
Also a little bit of modern Southern history, if more informal:

Until the late 70s, the South was a one-party region. The real election whe I was a kid was the Democratic primary. They were contested by factions that functioned pretty much as parties within the party. There were racist wings that were probably closely tied to the Klan. Byron De La Beckwith ran for Lt. Governor (a constitutionally more powerful position in Mississippi than governor) in the mid-60s as I recall. He was the murderer of Medgar Evers.

To say therefore that the Democrats were synonymous with the Klan is a misrepresentation. The conservative wing of the Dixie Democrats morphed into the southern Republicans after Kennedy, LBJ, and actually Nixon, who they considered a "****** lover." They loved Reagan and the Bushes.

The modern southern Democratic Party grew out of the Mississipi Freedom Democrats, who attempted to represent Mississippi at the (IIRC) 64 Democratic National Convention. They were majority black, and the party today has it's strength in the black community. There are a lot of white Democrats, however, such as my congressman, who has a A rating from the NRA.

TooTaxed
February 20, 2006, 02:53 PM
Concerrning which party most promotes equality...TODAY! Lets look at the last few administrations. The Republicans gave cabinet-level positons to General Powell and Condoleza Wright...the Democrats so trusted...who? The Republicans attempted to put a Hispanic on the supreme court...effort killed by...who?

It's baffelled me why the blacks in general support the Democrats rather than the Republicans...should be the other way around.:what:

CentralTexas
February 20, 2006, 02:58 PM
So as a black person, I'm unintelligent because I dont vote for your party?
:rolleyes:
And what lies are you talking about when it comes to Sharpton or Jackson?
Specific examples please.

Al Sharpton, look up Tawana Brawley
Jackson- Google his name and corporate shakedown etc.
CT

full auto seer
February 20, 2006, 02:58 PM
cosmoline is right on both counts:

1. walking out wasn't an option after the flood.

2. 'black-on-black' plays a big part in New Orleans life.

-seer-

p.s.
If you find the Williams documentary interesting, try:
"Radio Free Dixie : Robert F. Williams & the roots of Black power / Timothy B. Tyson"

lostone1413
February 20, 2006, 03:04 PM
Yes it was over state's rights. The state's right to decide whether or not to allow slavery in their state.

Nope It was over DC being controlled by the North unfairly taxing the South.

Far as Lincoln goes a carefull read of the Emancipation of Proclamation will show it never freed any slave. Fact is if you read some of the Linclon Dougless debates Linclon wanted to send the blacks back.

Slavery was never an issue in the Civil War until the North brought it up to get sympathy for their siad

lostone1413
February 20, 2006, 03:07 PM
Abraham Lincoln Racist
Leon Puissegur

I watched a program the other day about Abraham Lincoln. I could not believe my ears about how much good this man was supposed to have done. He was supposed to have “freed” the slaves, but facts prove this to be the biggest lie of all time. Abraham Lincoln NEVER freed a single slave during his entire time in office. As a matter of fact, Lincoln was and perhaps still is the biggest RACIST ever born in the United States. Now that I have your undivided attention I will carry on with just some quotes and letters by Abraham Lincoln from a book, “Lincoln Selected Speeches and Writings.
On October 16, 1854 Lincoln gave a speech on the Kansas – Nebraska Act. In it, he made the following statement, “What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the greater mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded.”

Could this be Lincoln, the “Great Emancipator”? Yes it is and this is just one of many statements that, had they been said in today’s’ arena, he would never had been elected to anything, due to his “RACIST” attitude. But wait, it gets better, or worse, whichever you may consider.

On June 26, 1857 Lincoln stated the following in his speech on the Dred Scott decision, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

Lincoln suggesting to send the African back to his native land? Yes, and he did not try to hide it. Could you imagine the flack he would catch to even consider such a motive these days? He would most certainly have spent his last day as any kind of representative at that point. To think people still honor him and call him a great man; my how we have been misled.

On August 21, 1858 Lincoln debated Douglas in Ottawa, Illinois. During the debate Lincoln stated, “I will say here while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position."

Can you believe this? Lincoln actually said the white man should be superior to the black man. How far would he have gotten in today’s world with words like that? And to think that he has had a monument made at the seat of our federal government to honor him... I used to wonder why these speeches and these lines were never taught in school, and then I realized that if they were, Lincoln would not have been honored as he is today.

In Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858 during the Fourth Lincoln/Douglas debate Lincoln stated, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor to qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

No matter how many times you look at this passage, it explodes with racism. Here is supposed to be an all-great man, yet he loudly exclaimed, “the superior position assigned to the white race.” I do not care who you are or where you come from, in today’s world anyone making a statement even remotely this bad would be chased out of the place he gave the speech and probably be brought to court to face charges. Lincoln may have done a few good things, but race relations was not one of them. As a matter of fact, he did few, if any, good things.

In July of 1862, Lincoln spoke of moving blacks out of the country. He stated the following, “I do not speak of emancipation at once, but of a decision at once to emancipate gradually. Room in South America for colonization, can be obtained cheaply, and in abundance; and when numbers shall be large enough to be company and encouragement for one another, the free people will not be so reluctant to go.”

Lincoln actually did move some blacks to South America and he saw to some being moved to Liberia in Northern Africa. This is a man that was supposed to have “freed” the slaves. Now I believe we can look at that infamous “Emancipation Proclamation.”

On September 22, 1862 Abraham Lincoln gave the “Emancipation Proclamation”. This proclamation was supposed to have freed the slaves, but it did not free a single slave North or South. The part of the proclamation which must be read carefully shows that Lincoln did not free any slaves in areas he actually had control over.

It reads, “Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander In Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first Day of January, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and in accordance with my so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, towit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana,(except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St.Johns, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans (including the City of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk & Portsmouth); and which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.”

The very last part of this “Proclamation” states that all those excepted counties, parishes, and cities were to be “…left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.” This makes the statement that those that were excepted were to remain as they were prior to the “proclamation”. Lincoln did not free a single slave in the North nor did he free any slaves anywhere else. The Proclamation was not worth the paper it was written on. Lincoln had no control over the States mentioned and he refused to free slaves in states he had control over. He even mentioned West Virginia, which was made a state illegally. West Virginia was a part of Virginia until 1862 when Lincoln made it a state, he did this even though “West Virginia” was a slave holding area. Many may say that he meant to free all slaves, but in a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase on September 2, 1863 Abraham Lincoln CONFIRMS that the “Emancipation Proclamation” had no legal or constitutional grounds.

He stated, “The original proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure.”


Abraham Lincoln was NOT “The Great Emancipator.” He did not free a single slave North, South, East, or West. Lincoln did that only to keep the British and French from joining the South. He had no INTENTION whatsoever to free any slave at all. Abraham Lincoln was not only a RACIST, he was a liar too.

CentralTexas
February 20, 2006, 04:30 PM
Nope It was over DC being controlled by the North unfairly taxing the South.

Far as Lincoln goes a carefull read of the Emancipation of Proclamation will show it never freed any slave. Fact is if you read some of the Linclon Dougless debates Linclon wanted to send the blacks back.

Slavery was never an issue in the Civil War until the North brought it up to get sympathy for their siad


From the emancipation proclamation-

"And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

Could you explain how this doesn't contradict your comment?
CT

Art Eatman
February 20, 2006, 04:37 PM
Kinda-sorta go back to the subject of the thread? Pretty please, with sugar on it?

:(, Art

middy
February 20, 2006, 04:51 PM
hso, are you going to cite your sources, or are we supposed to believe that you just typed all of that off the top of your head?

LMC
February 20, 2006, 05:05 PM
Jesse jackson is a black David duke

As far as Mr. lincoln goes he was a great man plain and simple.

mordechaianiliewicz
February 20, 2006, 05:23 PM
I love this stuff. In my state of MO, to this day there is a Jim Crow Law in the form of handgun permits. This permit was never given to black people until the civil rights movement.

It is an evil legacy to be wiped out now.

Blacks were test cases for some of the 1st gun control, and I still contend blacks, along with Jews, and any other repressed minorities (currently or in the past) should be the biggest defenders of rkba.

Too sad that all too often, they are not.

lostone1413
February 20, 2006, 05:56 PM
Why is it the term repressed minorities get under my skin so much.Maybe because the majority of the minorities blame the evil white people for everything. Funny I can't think of one minority group who hasn't benefited from knowing the White People. I can't think of one example were it works the other way

Cosmoline
February 20, 2006, 06:07 PM
Ah yes. The tangible benefits

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rhernand/wounded%20knee%20dead.jpg

Otherguy Overby
February 20, 2006, 06:42 PM
From the emancipation proclamation-

"And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

CT

What you quote is very much like what the anti-gun people do with the second ammendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,... They leave out the rest.

There's more after your quote of the proclamation, all the exclusions. The proclamation only freed the slaves in the seceding/rebelling states. You may also recall that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't happen until the war had been going on for two years or so.

Byron Quick
February 20, 2006, 07:17 PM
People,

Art has already asked you politely to get back on the original topic of the thread. You can take discussion of Lincoln's sins, the War of Northern Aggression, the Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction, the founding of the Ku Klux Klan, and the sins of the Democratic and Republican Parties to PM and/or to APS.

Discussion of the racist beginnings of gun control, the continuing racism of gun control advocates supporting policies that prevent poor blacks from legally obtaining firearms, and Negroes with guns can continue.

Art's probably going to stomp on the thread if y'all continue with the offtopic chatter.

Your choice.

Baba Louie
February 20, 2006, 07:26 PM
From the film's website... http://www.jou.ufl.edu/documentary/negroeswithguns/

The story of a forgotten civil rights figure who dared to advocate armed resistance to the violence of the Jim Crow South.

The Documentary Institute team of filmmakers, Sandra Dickson, Churchill Roberts, Cindy Hill and Cara Pilson, who previously collaborated on the critically acclaimed FREEDOM NEVER DIES: THE LEGACY OF HARRY T. MOORE, announced completion of their latest documentary, NEGROES WITH GUNS: ROB WILLIAMS AND BLACK POWER. Featuring a score by Terence Blanchard, NEGROES WITH GUNS combines modern-day interviews with rare archival news footage to tell the story of Rob Williams, the forefather of the Black Power movement and a complex man who played a pivotal role in the struggle for respect, dignity and equality for all Americans.

Williams, dubbed the “violent crusader” by some, intended his philosophy of armed self-defense to work in concert with non-violent resistance; instead, he became the catalyst for what has been called a national showdown between these two opposing philosophies of the civil rights movement. In August 1961, Freedom Riders came to Monroe, North Carolina—Williams’ hometown—to assist Williams in his civil rights struggle and demonstrate that passive resistance rather than armed self-defense was the superior tactic in the civil rights struggle. But on August 27th all hell broke loose. By the end of the day, Freedom Riders had been bloodied, beaten, and jailed and Rob Williams was on the run from the FBI.

NEGROES WITH GUNS is not only an incisive look at a truly fascinating man but also a thought-provoking examination of our notions of patriotism and the acceptable limits of dissent.

Kodiaz
February 20, 2006, 08:03 PM
Hey wait a minute on attacking the Confederacy. They made one mistake and granted it was huge(Not freeing the slaves). But they did fight for home rule against a federal government that was taking more power than it should. If they would have freed the slaves the cause of the Confederacy would have been right and just. A lot of those Confederate soldiers were like us they didn't own slaves but they saw the federal government taking more and more power they stood for the things we believe in now. Don't knock those men they would stand with you for the constitution. Their government failed them.

Malone LaVeigh
February 20, 2006, 08:23 PM
Hey wait a minute on attacking the Confederacy. They made one mistake and granted it was huge(Not freeing the slaves). But they did fight for home rule against a federal government that was taking more power than it should. If they would have freed the slaves the cause of the Confederacy would have been right and just. A lot of those Confederate soldiers were like us they didn't own slaves but they saw the federal government taking more and more power they stood for the things we believe in now. Don't knock those men they would stand with you for the constitution. Their government failed them.
And if THATS not about civil liberties, nothing is.

crazed_ss
February 20, 2006, 08:28 PM
Why is it the term repressed minorities get under my skin so much.Maybe because the majority of the minorities blame the evil white people for everything.


The majority??! I'm sure you have some evidence to back up your ridiculous claim. From my experience, I can tell you most of the minorities I know go about their lives daily just trying to work and get by like everyone else. We dont have time to sit around and blame anyone for anything.

Of course your experience might vary.


Funny I can't think of one minority group who hasn't benefited from knowing the White People. I can't think of one example were it works the other way


I guess you're not gonna use the argument that blacks are better off because of slavery. If someone rapes a girl and she ends up having a kid that cures cancer, does that justify the initial rape? NO.. The ends can never justify the means.


And people wonder why blacks dont vote Republican..:rolleyes:

Byron Quick
February 20, 2006, 10:32 PM
Negroes with Guns, folks. No thread veer.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 20, 2006, 11:42 PM
It is also worth noting that the first NRA president, Ambrose Burnside, favored desegregation of the military after the Civil War (http://www.nrapublications.org/first%20freedom/burnside.asp), almost a full 100 years before it actually happened.

Burnside's idea of arming blacks was just a little ahead of its time.

Rabbi
February 21, 2006, 12:16 AM
The black people I knew in Detroit, and I knew a LOT ........ were of two schools. The brothers on the block who worked in a shop or taught school or delivered mail or fought fires, were pro-gun. The other ones (the antis) were some kind of political wh*res with a vested interest in keeping them disarmed.

Think about it; who are our friends and allies and who are our enemies?

Detroit still has both Black Panthers AND Night Riders.

Maxwell
February 21, 2006, 12:24 AM
Burnside's idea of arming blacks was just a little ahead of its time.

Actually I think it was just in the nick of time.
He was using black soldiers, there would be a backlash for them to face after the war. The former slaves also knew the only way to insure against a return to bondage was to become as well armed as possible. Giving them guns would be payment on a promise of liberty, destroying slavery more effectively than the law could.

If not then, when would it have been a good idea?

Fast forwarding to Williams situation. If he had not had the option to own a gun befor things got out of hand, any and all talk of confronting violence with violence would have been pointless. Few would have weapons, then there would be a well kept list of names and houses to raid.

If things were as they are now in many cities, you certainly wouldnt get a pro-gun piece of law passed to arm black men in time to stop the KKK.

Your not going to find large and cheap supplies of guns the day after a revolution starts. Its why we have the 2nd amendment, to make sure we can buy as much as we need while we still have the option.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2006, 09:37 AM
.
Your not going to find large and cheap supplies of guns the day after a revolution starts. Its why we have the 2nd amendment, to make sure we can buy as much as we need while we still have the option.

Lots of folks can't find a large and cheap supply of guns TODAY. The urban areas with large Black populations have been effectively disarmed already with all of the racist firearm laws on the books.

What purpose can be served by outlawing "cheap" guns but allowing the sale of more expensive? These so called "Saturday Night Special" laws etc are 100% racist. Notice that there are few low cost guns on these approved lists. Also notice that the top urban areas have tighter restrictions on purchasing than out in the suburbs, even in very restrictive states like New York.

Look at the high costs of CCW permits and training.
Texas has an "indigent" clause in it's CCW program to cut the cost for low income folks. That helps in some cases, but it's certainly not enough.
What other states offer this?

How are low income inner city law abiding folks, both Black and White, supposed to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights?

They either have to rise in income level and move out, or they are targets with no means of defending themselves. As targets they play right into the Dems arguments of more firearms laws. As a poor inner city law abiding citizen you HAVE to be in favor of more gun laws since you can't do anything else to protect yourself. You're forced into a corner. You vote Dem because they promise more protection and more handouts. You're trapped because you never have an opportunity to move up, kept down by the very system that's supposed to take care of you.

There is a reason the Democrats disarmed these folks first. In reality they would be more likely to take up arms against a repressive government than high income suburbanites, and the Dems know it.

It makes me sick :(

RealGun
February 21, 2006, 10:21 AM
The urban areas with large Black populations have been effectively disarmed already with all of the racist firearm laws on the books.(

You make it sound like gun control actually works.

crazed_ss
February 21, 2006, 10:26 AM
Umm.. I think he's reffering to law-abiding blacks being disarmed.. We do exist ya know.

Obviously the thugs and criminals still have their weapons. It's the honest, hard working people in these communities that arent affored the oppurtunity to protect themselves due to BS gun laws like the DC handgun ban.

lostone1413
February 21, 2006, 11:19 AM
The majority??! I'm sure you have some evidence to back up your ridiculous claim. From my experience, I can tell you most of the minorities I know go about their lives daily just trying to work and get by like everyone else. We dont have time to sit around and blame anyone for anything.

Of course your experience might vary.



I guess you're not gonna use the argument that blacks are better off because of slavery. If someone rapes a girl and she ends up having a kid that cures cancer, does that justify the initial rape? NO.. The ends can never justify the means.


And people wonder why blacks dont vote Republican..:rolleyes:


All you have to do is look at how the Blacks live in Africa today as compared to how they live in America. I think that should answers anyones question if they benefited from the White People. Now lest see how the Whites have benefited. 80-90% of the violent crime is committed by non whites. Oh is that a plus or minus for the Whites?

crazed_ss
February 21, 2006, 11:25 AM
Guess the slavetraders should have thought of that 400yrs ago.
What's done is done. Time to move on and try to fix the problems we have now.

Maxwell
February 21, 2006, 12:31 PM
You make it sound like gun control actually works.

Define "work".
Gun control has put a number of otherwise good citizens in jail, blocked others with walls of paperwork or the added costs on gun ownership, and its empowerd criminals and government over the common man.

Its a far cry from post civil war times, or even the 60's, when all you needed was a few dollars and someone willing to sell you something.

roscoe
February 21, 2006, 01:52 PM
80-90% of the violent crime is committed by non whites. Oh is that a plus or minus for the Whites?
What are you talking about?! According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2004, whites committed 8.3 million violent crimes and blacks 3.26 million. Get your data straight!

Funny I can't think of one minority group who hasn't benefited from knowing the White People.
That really is an outrageous thing to say. You should ask the native Tasmanians today if they benefited from knowing the whites. That's right - go look it up.

You are looking at history through a tube that is only 40 years wide. Go back a little bit - whites have only been on top for the last couple of hundred years, and might not stay there. We will see what China has to say over the next 100 years.

You should read up on some of the history of the last 4000 years.
You chould read up on crime statistics.
You should also do a little research on the biological concept of race.


My apologies to the moderators if this seemed too hostile, but I cannot abide unsupported arguments like this.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2006, 04:13 PM
You make it sound like gun control actually works.

Gun control DOES work in as far as disarming law abiding citizens.

What planet are you on? That's the whole problem, gun control works to disarm those that obey the law, and does nothing to control those that disobey the law. That's sort of the definition of a criminal if I remember right.

RealGun
February 21, 2006, 06:50 PM
Gun control DOES work in as far as disarming law abiding citizens.

What planet are you on? That's the whole problem, gun control works to disarm those that obey the law, and does nothing to control those that disobey the law. That's sort of the definition of a criminal if I remember right.

That's what I call a "violent agreement". Let's review. The purpose of gun control is to control crime, or so they say. That doesn't work. Can we move on now?

mec
February 21, 2006, 07:00 PM
Roy Innes, head of the Congress for Racial Equality and all around neat guy became an NRA director a few years ago. He said, "I haven't seen any 'sheets' (KKK) around here." when describing his contacts with the NRA membership and hierarchy.

Conde Rice calls herself a "Second Amendment Absolutist" because her family and friends were prepared to defend themselves during the civil rights movement.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Negroes With Guns" Documentary" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!