Guns

"His advocacy for black self-defense is straight from the heart of Malcolm X."

|

That's from liberal Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy, who was very impressed by Justice Clarence Thomas' superb concurrence in the landmark gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago. As Milloy writes:

He hardly ever speaks during oral arguments, often appearing asleep on the bench. But in his written opinion Monday supporting the right to bear arms, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas roared to life….

In a scorcher of an opinion that reads like a mix of black history lesson and Black Panther Party manifesto, he goes on to say, "Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces and the '76 Association spread terror among blacks. . . . The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence."

This was no muttering from an Uncle Tom, as many black people have accused him of being. His advocacy for black self-defense is straight from the heart of Malcolm X. He even cites the slave revolts led by Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner—implying that white America has long wanted to take guns away from black people out of fear that they would seek revenge for centuries of racial oppression.

Advertisement

NEXT: Akbar and Jeff Shrugged

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Robert Byrd was unavailable for comment.

    1. No, no, I’m right here! Will someone please come get Saddam and Liberace off out of my ass! They’re worse than Steve Smith!

      Pleeeeeeeeease! Help me!!!

      But don’t send no blacks…

    2. Did they bury him yet? I haven’t pissed in days.

    3. here, let me…”Lordy, Lordy…nigra’s with guns…Lordy, Lordy”

  2. No, no. This can’t be right. Libertarians are raaacist. They would never support such a thing.

    1. Redundant

      1. I meant Confused Liberal’s handle

      2. See how confused I am!

  3. Huh – I just figured it was “straight from the heart of a conservative who’s been pretty consistent in his opinions since getting on the bench.”

    No so sure about all the identity attribution. Of course, I may be mistaken.

    1. Identity attribution or not, I’d say it’s spoken like someone who actually has a sense of history.

  4. This… this is sacrilege! No black man, let alone one so lucky as to be granted the privelege of writing in the Post may praise the race traitor known as Clarence the Cracker.

    So long, Courtland Milloy, we hardly knew ye.

  5. I really think that his dissent is going to go down as one of the better opinions ever written. If you haven’t read it, you should. It is fantastic. And it spits in the face of every liberal white who claims that Thomas is some kind of affirmative action baby or not smart enough to be on the Court.

    1. Thomas is far more an authentic American black man than is the current president.

      1. Yes, he is!

    2. You mean concurrence. Though he does have some nice dissents as well.

      For concurrences, it’s a tough call for me between this and FOX vs. FCC, where he says that Pacifica and Red Lion are out of date and should be abandoned.

      1. I mean concurrence. I was thinking of his being the only one who wanted to use the P&I clause. That caused me to write dissent when I meant concurrence. I will have to read Fox v. FCC.

    3. His concurrence for Lawrence v Texas is pretty epic, too.

      1. I thought he dissented and would have upheld that law. Gotta do a little research.

        1. right, that’s what I meant. Usually I get that right (I was AT the oral arguments). Sorry, didn’t have coffee this morning.

        2. Ok Yonemoto I guess I was slow to pick up on the sarcasm.

          1. ha, no sarcasm. Although I disagree with letting it be legal, I think that his decision was extremely principled.

        3. …right, he would have upheld the law as a justice, but voted against it in the legislature.

  6. Prediction: Justice Thomas will get approximately zero appreciation in the Black community for his stance.

    1. Yes, because the black community has been devestated by gun violence and now to add insult to injury has this sellout suddenly trying to make himself out to be a civil rights hero.

      1. Don’t be his race-baiting porn.

        1. Sorry for ignoring your advice, Sug, but I just get really pissed when fucktards who’ve only seen inner cities through their TV screen try to tell people who actually have to live among gangs (gangs who ALREADY HAVE GUNS DESPITE THE HANDGUN BAN) that they can’t protect themselves. It’s just as bad as the douchebags who eat at trendy restaurants and then tell starving Africans not to eat GMO’s.

          1. It’s never personally directed. It’s more like the warning labels you see on industrial-sized bottles of lye.

      2. Hmm… To whom should I give more credibility when assessing the needs and problems of the black community? Otis McDonald, a black man who has to deal with guns every day, or Dan T., who’s last fight probably happened over the last latte at Starbuck’s?

      3. Yes, because the black community has been devestated by gun violence and now to add insult to injury has this sellout suddenly trying to make himself out to be a civil rights hero.

        Because armed police arrested black people who possessed firearms.

        1. When? Today?

      4. So Dan, how’s it feel to be aligned with the Klan on the issue of disarming black folk?

      5. this sellout suddenly trying to make himself out to be a civil rights hero

        Dan T, why do you hate The President?

      6. Thanks, black community ombudsman Dan T.

    2. From black “leadership” he’ll get zero appreciation b/c it undermines their victimization platform.

      I’ve never read Courtland Milloy before, may have to start.

    3. Actually, you’re wrong.

      I would say 90% of the calls I received yesterday were in support of the Supreme Court and people say they want to bear guns. They’re tired of the violence and it’s very very interesting. I have had a few on both sides today, but yesterday was overwhelming, it was stunning to me.

      I just told Attorney Lou Meyers, lady stopped me last night; I did the commencement address at Boys and Girls High. She said I listen to your show Reverend and I want you to know I’m saved sanctified by feel of the Holy Ghost, but if they come in my house I’m going to drop them right where they stand. So, and she looked like she was in her eighties.

      That quote is from Al Sharpton.

      1. I linked to that yesterday. Idiots like Dan T have no idea what the black community is really like beyond what they see on Cosby reruns.

        1. Y’see, the kids, they listen to the rap music, which gives them the brain damage. With their hippin’ and their hoppin’, and their bippin’, and their boppin’… so they don’t know what the jazz is all about! You see, jazz is like a Jello Pudding pop ? no! Actually, it’s more like Kodak film ? no! Actually, jazz is like the new Coke; it’ll be around forever! Heh heh heh…

        2. Yeah, Dan T. is clearly clueless. There, I’ll say it. “Dan T. doesn’t care about black people!”

          I hope I’ve been his porn.

          1. :::cut to Chris Tucker:::

          2. Whereas, I care about all people…..even if they are on a public payroll.

            Cuz I believe in redemption! Inside every one of us is the desire to be free and to accord to all the same.

  7. It is good practice, when talking to a gun-control supporter, to point out, again and again and again, that the vast majority of gun control was enacted to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and undesirables. Just beat them with it until they understand or at least shut up.

    1. This policy fit in perfectly with their stance on eugenics and forced segregation – now conveniently stowed in the Memory Hole or blamed on their conservative foils.

    2. It sure got rid of joe.

      1. Serious question: is that what got rid of joe?

        1. You need to ask John, but I’m pretty sure.

          1. It wasn’t me, it was Suger Free who ran him off. I was actually (gasp) working really hard that week and wasn’t on the board. I wish I could claim credit for running Joe off. But I wasn’t even here to see it.

            1. Uh, no, John, it was me, so stop giving NutraSweet my credit.

              Here is the thread.

              1. In fact, I think I’ve had to point this out to you multiple times, John, and you’ve even read the thread in the link before. Maybe you should get checked for Alzheimer’s.

                1. Sometimes I wonder. I will forget the damndest things sometimes. My apologies for confusing you with him. But hey it could have been worse, I could have confused you with Warty.

              2. Here’s what caused the cracking to begin. It predates your thread by about 90 minutes:

                https://reason.com/blog/2009/02…..nt_1214694

            2. i left because with all the rascism it was getting too easy to win threads

              another thread won by me, that’s why they call me threadwinner joe

            3. Yes, John, it was all Episiarch. Although I have the distinction of being the only person to make him mad enough to threaten me with physical violence.

              1. Link please. I’m in a mood to laugh at some impotent rage.

                1. for the lulz

                  joe|9.3.08 @ 12:13PM|#

                  Actually, SugarFree, I won statewide medals when I captained my debate team. But had somebody spoken to me like you did, I would have punched him in the mouth and walked out of the room.

                  Hiding behind the internet, you don’t have to worry about the first part, pussy, but I can still blow you off as beneath my notice.

                  1. Joe once accused me of lying about my military service. I got his personal e-mail and sent him pictures of me in Iraq from my .mil work e-mail account. His response was that he had done some kind of IT test and that my address didn’t check out and was therefore faked. It was just pathetic.

                    I really hated that guy.

                    1. John, you must release those e-mails!

                    2. They are gone sadly. I have since switched jobs and they were eaten by the server when they shut down my e-mail address. I should have sent it to him from my AKO account so the e-mails would have been preserved. My mistake.

                  2. He wins a bonus for bragging about being on a debate team. What a fucking obnoxious prick. I’d take 10 Dan Ts any day over another joe.

                    1. The debate team is a classic. Straight up pathetic. “My mom says I’m handsome!”

                    2. I’d take 10 Dan Ts any day over another joe.

                      We’ve already got about 10 different Dan T. personas here now, so we’re practically already there.

                    3. He wins a bonus for bragging about being on a debate team.

                      He’s a real life Artie Ziff!

                    4. I dunno. I could write a perl script that would be indistinguishable from Dan T. Joe wasn’t usually on auto pilot until he was proven wrong about something. Then he got locked in to ahole mode, but at other times he was at leasting adding new information to the system.

                    5. There was always two joes. One was a douchedrinker and the other was a fairly laid back and funny guy. He was just so addicted to being a cockbag, he let the dark side take over too many times.

                    6. True. I could talk with him about music or pop culture. But political discussions would certainly bring out the bad side in joe.

        2. No. Joe ran off because he claimed that the board was now racist in its criticism of Obama. I don’t think the racist history of gun control was the direct issue.

          1. Actually, joe once made a comment to the affect that the NRA should make a bigger noise about the history of gun control being directed towards blacks and the history the NRA had during Reconstruction of fighting those laws.

            I sounded like the sincre kind of questioning statement an openminded curious person would ask upon being enlightened about something they were previously unaware of.

            I always thought it was sad that that joe (the one I think Art and SF observed occasionally) came out so rarely.

            1. I agree with you. That was why he incited so much hatred. He showed just enough of a decent side that his poor behavior was that much more appalling.

      2. Another serious question… Am I the only one who didn’t mind joe? Obviously there was plenty of disagreement politically, but generally speaking I thought he offered halfway thought-out points, which is far more than I can say about Dan T. or MNG.

        1. Okay, in response to John’s comment above, I apparently missed the racism stuff. That definitely wouldn’t qualify as a halfway thought-out point.

          1. joe|12.11.08 @ 7:36PM|#joe,

            You really are kinda slow aren’t you?

            No, I’m frequently complimented as being one of the more intelligent commenters here, unlike you.

        2. I don’t miss joe because the bastard argued in bad faith and constantly moved goal posts.

        3. I never incifed him. I eventually did for both Dan and MNG.

          1. Hey, where is MNG? Ouch, another one bit the dust?

            1. He was run over by a Caterpillar driven by one of the Elders of Zion.

          2. All credit to Eric the .5b, master of Javascript.

            1. .5b ran MNG off? I always miss these things.

        4. I thought in general he was a very good debater, and I enjoyed numerous sparring matches I had with him. I do think he was a bad loser, and he would never admit he was wrong, especially if you had insulted him personally while deominstrating that to him. He actually did conceed a few points to me though – so in a way he wasn’t completely intellectually dishonest.

          1. domo echoes my personal experiences with joe. But considering his constant hossanas to the Obama, it is good that he left. Every thread would be a profanity laden shout-fest.

        5. I didn’t mind joe too much. But it is good that he left when he did. He was headed down a bad road.

        6. Yes. Your are the only one.

        7. joe’s problem was that he would just go beserk when he started to be on the losing end of a really partisan argument. You could see when joe had lost by the kind of insults that started spewing forth.

          I was under the impression he left because he could no longer defend Obama in the face of Epi’s (and i thought some other folks’) constantly pointing to his failures to cme close to living up to the campaign image.

          1. I’m delighted at this comment because I feel like joe still reads this board. The narcissist in him probably comes here just to Ctrl F for his name and will be infuriated by the truth Isaac and everyone else is telling.

            1. Im sure he will be back the next time a republican is in the white house.

    3. The public school system was developed to convert Catholic children into good Protestants, too, but that doesn’t mean we should get rid of it. Many good institutions had bad intentions when they were first set up.

  8. Thomas’s references to historic threats posed by white militias might have been dismissed if not for a resurgence of such groups in the year after Barack Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president. And if their behavior turns as violent as their racist rhetoric often threatens, then Thomas will almost certainly go down in history as the nation’s foremost black radical legal scholar.

    Thomas’s anti-racist radicalism vindicated by racist radical Thomas fans?

    I sense a bamboozlin’.

    1. Thomas’s anti-racist radicalism vindicated by racist radical Thomas fans?

      It’s as if the Washington Post hired its headline writers away from Variety!

      1. Well, when you’ve lost THE FORBIDDEN…

  9. Of course, Thomas’s references to historic threats posed by white militias might have been dismissed if not for a resurgence of such groups in the year after Barack Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president.

    And if their behavior turns as violent as their racist rhetoric often threatens, then Thomas will almost certainly go down in history as the nation’s foremost black radical legal scholar.

    Jesus Christ…

  10. Thomas makes a decent point, with one very small problem: the days of the Klan and other racial hate groups riding around lynching blacks is over.

    Thomas knows this, of course, which makes his argument disingenuous at best. At worst, it’s another betrayal by one of the most vile men to ever serve on the Court.

    1. “Thomas makes a decent point, with one very small problem: the days of the Klan and other racial hate groups riding around lynching blacks is over.”

      But that of course doesn’t stop you from claiming everyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist and that the Tea Party is a domestic terrorist organization. Dan at least read and understand your own posts if you can’t be bothered to understand anything else.

      1. But that of course doesn’t stop you from claiming everyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist and that the Tea Party is a domestic terrorist organization.

        I love it, but Dan will just say that now they get figuratively lynched in the doctor’s office, hence Obamacare strikes at the heart of income inequality.

        Raaaaaacism is always there if you want to find it. Dan’s just looking somewhere else now. Please try and keep up.

        1. “Thomas makes a decent point, with one very small problem: the days of the Klan and other racial hate groups riding around lynching blacks is over.”

          I consider the rolling 30’s bloods to be a racial hate group. Granted, they hate whitey, but rarely do they kill him. They mostly just shoot black vice lords and black crips. There is no group of people more racist than ghetto gangbanger blacks. If a white person walks by their house and in a very neighborly way says, “Hello”, the usual response is a blank stare.

    2. “Given the reputation of the Mildrens, I have decided that if they find us, and I believe they will, we will not be able to prevent them from boarding this ship,” Smith continued. “As your captain, I plan to comply with standard procedure if this happens and employ the suicide switch. As per Federal law, if any of you object to this self-terminating course of action, you may now invoke your Jowtersh rights.”

      As Smith expected, there were no objections.

      1. It’s just so delicious. It’s like Dan captured Neal Asher a la Misery, but instead of breaking his ankles and making him write, he hit him in the head with a hammer repeatedly and then had him write.

        1. This is my favorite story. It attempts to be a satire of science fiction, but it fails so fucking spectacularly. As you say: delicious.

          1. Have you read any Asher yet, Warty? If not, you need to get crackin’.

            1. Nope. Is he a good source of lulz? I’ll have to check him out.

              1. Lulz? No. Really good, entertaining hard scifi? Yes.

                1. I’ll check him out. Which book should I start with?

                  1. The Skinner. It’s fantastic.

      2. Where is that from?

        1. John, didn’t you know that our Danny is an accomplished author?

          1. Wow. I did not know that.

            1. The last time a cargo ship had attempted an emergency docking there, in fact, the Nyr-Roimms blasted it to bits with a beewtryl cannon.

              1. Reading that piece of work, I’m beginning to think that Dan T finds science fiction to be full of big words that are hard to understand.

                explains a lot.

                1. Listen guys, the story is supposed to be funny. And I understand that it will not seem funny to you if you don’t get the joke.

                  1. We get the joke, idiot. We’re laughing at you.

                    1. OK, I’ll admit that I snickered. Dan T.’s still a douche, though.

          2. I refuse to laugh at someone’s writing. That is just cruel.

          1. “Is there a bigger bunch of crybabies in the country right now? I mean, the white middle-class in America is among the most privileged group of people in the world but all they do is bitch about how unfair life is.”

            Yes. The coffee party.

            http://jimmsolo.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/a-new-beverage/

    3. Hey Dan, why don’t you come to Chicago and I’ll drop you off at the Currency Exchange at 75th and Stoney Island. After you’ve spent 24 hours there I’ll listen to you tell me that the status quo is fine and law-abiding citizens owning guns would make things dangerous.

      1. I’m sure if I took you up on that, my conclusion would be that “man, I sure wish even more people had guns!”

        You guys are like children, with your good-guy/bad-guy views of the world.

        1. Yeah, it’s best if only bad guys have guns.

        2. If only I could be a father to those uncontrollable, childlike libertarians. They and the country would be so much better off if I could discipline them.

          1. Spank them. Spank them hard. ::snickers::

        3. I’ll try to say this with small words: those people already have guns. They won’t have more guns after the ban is lifted because they can already get all the guns they want despite your beloved gun control laws. YOU, on the other hand, might wish YOU had a gun in said situation. But since you’ve never been in that situation you wouldn’t understand and clearly you have no desire to try to understand so I’ll quit wasting my energy typing this…

      2. CMS – at least there’s a hospital nearby.

    4. Thomas makes a decent point, with one very small problem: the days of the Klan and other racial hate groups riding around lynching blacks is over.

      Because of armed men.

      Thomas knows this, of course, which makes his argument disingenuous at best. At worst, it’s another betrayal by one of the most vile men to ever serve on the Court.

      Whom did he betray?

    5. Because supporting gun rights and property rights makes you ‘vile’.

    6. God, I just love gobbling cock so much.

    7. Thomas makes a decent point, with one very small problem: the days of the Klan and other racial hate groups riding around lynching blacks is over.

      Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the Civil Rights establishment make it sound like the Klan and lynching could come back at any moment.

  11. ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF

  12. I think the bigger story is that a black liberal used the brain God gave him to come to a reasonable conclusion rather than parroting the views of the DNC. I’m sure the DNC and their black hired spimasters don’t want that sort thing spreading. Go Clarence.

  13. Would it be possible for someone to post a link to the Thomas decision?

    1. Here it is on FindLaw:

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/…..ncurrence2

    2. Here it is, Ecodude.

      It’s actually a really interesting read, a lot of history. Also, some language parsing/pedantry.

  14. I just like how the “Pale Faces” tried to take ownership of the hate terminology used against them. That really pre-saged the whole “Queer” and “Nigga” thing.

    And then they got shot to pieces by black dudes with guns.

  15. Thomas’ points out the flaws in the idea of guns providing self-defense. Clearly guns made the KKK ineffective–oh wait, they didn’t. What stopped the KKK was law enforcement. The idea that gun ownership somehow stops tyrany is not supported by history in the US or abroad.

    1. Wrong. Law enforcement at the time refused to provide protection for blacks.

      1. …or was actually involved in klan activities.

        Law enforcement that is.

      2. Yeah I’ll always remember the photo of that fat sheriff in Mississippi, on trial in the ’60s for killing those civil rights workers, laughing and dipping into a pack of Red Man tobacco. And these are they people that R2 would trust to own guns while the rest of us are defenseless???

        1. Pablo,
          Does arming a population make the sheriff more or less likely to kill them? Why was the sheriff on trial–the FBI investigated the crime.

          1. less likely.

          2. Well I do recall now that two of the workers in question were white, though they chose not to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. The third one was black.

            Can you think of any majority who oppressed a minority without first disarming them?

            The sheriff was on trial because the evidence pointed to him and his fellow badge wearing goons.

            1. Who collected the evidence? The FBI.

              1. What’s your point, R2? Are you trying to set up a false dichotomy?

                1. My point: individual gun ownership did not stop the Klan, Law enforcement stopped the Klan.

                  1. Individual gun ownership helped deter the Klan, though. I think that’s all people are saying.

    2. What stopped the KKK was the end of active support by law enforcement

      Fixed it for you.

      1. So first, you both agree that gun ownership did not stop the KKK. “the end of active support by law enforcement” was caused by what? Oh wait, yes, the FBI. So how was I wrong?

        1. R2,

          You might want to look into the actual history of the Klan. Hint there were two periods of clan violence in this country. The one you think you know something about and the earlier worse one during reconstruction.

          1. Really, please teach me more. I wish I could be as smart as you. So tell me which period of Klan violence was stopped the by individual gun ownership?

            1. Do your own homework, you smarmy fuck.

              1. Warty,
                Come on, answer the question. Which period of Klan violence was stopped by invidividual gun ownership? I’ll tell you the answer: neither period. In one case, they effectively reasserted control, and in the other case, law enforcement eventually stopped them.

                1. Nobody’s saying the Klan was stopped by black people with guns, you smarmy fuck. Read Jordan’s link.

            2. Armed self-defense saved many black lives and deterred or ended many racist attacks.

              https://reason.com/archives/200…..un-sights/

              1. Did such armed self-defense prevent tyranny of the Klan or merely stop individual attacks? The idea that individual gun ownership can stop tyranny is an assertion frequently made in libertarian forums. I have yet to see any evidence that wide-spread gun ownership can do anything to stop such tyranny.

                1. If you’re asking whether it stopped racist attacks altogether, then the answer is no, just as laws against murder have not stopped murder altogether.

                  1. I’m asking whether individual gun ownership really weakened the power of the Klan?

                    1. Even a single demonstrated instance of violence averted by armed blacks is enough to show that Klan power was weakened. Just ask the guy who survived.

                    2. Of course it did. Let’s see, which is easier, lynching people who have guns, or lynching people who don’t? What point are you trying to make here R2?

                2. Did such armed self-defense prevent tyranny of the Klan or merely stop individual attacks?

                  Stopping individual attacks is good enough.

                  The fact is the Klan was and is a shambling band of cowards. They were not going to risk their lives for their cause.

                3. “The idea that individual gun ownership can stop tyranny is an assertion frequently made in libertarian forums. I have yet to see any evidence that wide-spread gun ownership can do anything to stop such tyranny.”

                  Worked for us.

                  1. Lexington and Concord were battles where the British were trying to seize stores of the state militias. It was state militias and a national army that stopped the British–not a few individual gun owners.

                    1. Um, those state militias were composed of armed individuals cooperating to provide for common defense…

                    2. Private, individual ownership of firearms has done a pretty good job of keeping tyranny at bay here in the U.S. for about 230 years now.

                      During WWII, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is reported to have stated: “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle barrel behind each blade of grass.” The knowledge that American citizens were widely armed deterred the Japanese from attempting a land invasion.

                      Why did Hitler not attack Switzerland?

                      As far as Lexington and Concord being fought by “state militias,” – first, they were local, not state, militias – there being no “states,” but colonies at that time. Second, what are militias? Answer: private citizens armed with their own military-style weapons, acting in coordination for the common self-defense.

                      “What are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each ma against his bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of every American?The ultimate power of the sword is not in the hands of the federal and state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain in the hands of the people.” ?Tench Coxe

                      Tench Coxe also stated that the militia “are in fact the effective part of the people at large.”

                      Your comparison of the militia to the modern-day National Guard also is quite misplaced and incorrect.

                      “What are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each ma against his bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of every American?The ultimate power of the sword is not in the hands of the federal and state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain in the hands of the people.”?Tench Coxe

                  2. It worked for us, also.

                4. Geesh, have you ever heard of the American Revolutionary War? How about the French Resistance during WWII? Why do you think the Swiss government supplies fully automatic weapons to their adult population?

                  1. Dammit, French Resistance is a better example than I thought of.

                5. I have yet to see any evidence that wide-spread gun ownership can do anything to stop such tyranny.

                  Ask Charles I or George III.

            3. A. Gun Control in the South

              The development of racially based slavery in the seventeenth century American colonies was accompanied by the creation of laws meting out separate treatment and granting separate rights on the basis of race. An early sign of such emerging restrictions and one of the most important legal distinctions was the passing of laws denying free blacks the right to keep arms. “In 1640, the first recorded restrictive legislation passed concerning blacks in Virginia excluded them from owning a gun.”[5]

              Virginia law set Negroes apart from all other groups . . . by denying them the important right and obligation to bear arms. Few restraints could indicate [Page 70] more clearly the denial to Negroes of membership in the White community. This first foreshadowing of the slave codes came in 1640, at just the time when other indications first appeared that Negroes were subject to special treatment.[6]

              In the later part of the 17th Century fear of slave uprisings in the South accelerated the passage of laws dealing with firearms possessions by blacks. In 1712, for instance, South Carolina passed “An act for the better ordering and governing of Negroes and Slaves” which included two articles particularly relating to firearms ownership and blacks.[7] Virginia passed a similar act entitled “An Act for Preventing Negroes Insurrections.”[8]

              Thus, in many of the ante-bellum states, free and/or slave blacks were legally forbidden to possess arms. State legislation which prohibited the bearing of arms by blacks was held to be constitutional due to the lack of citizen status of the Afro-American slaves. Legislators simply ignored the fact that the United States Constitution and most state constitutions referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a right of the “people” rather than of the “citizen”.[9]

              The Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld a law prohibiting free blacks from carrying firearms on the grounds that they were not citizens.[10] In the Georgia case of Cooper v. Mayor of Savannah, a similar provision passed constitutional muster on the grounds that “free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.”[11] Chief Justice Taney argued, in the infamous Dred Scott case, that the Constitution could not have intended that free blacks be citizens:

              For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operations of the special laws and from the police regulations which they [the states] considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the Negro race, who [Page 71] were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, . . . [A]nd it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.[12]

              After the conclusion of the American Civil War, several southern legislatures adopted comprehensive regulations, Black Codes, by which the new freed men were denied many of the rights that white citizens enjoyed. The Special Report of the Antislavery Conference of 1867 noted with particular emphasis that under these Black Codes blacks were “forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assaults.”[13] Mississippi’s Black Code included the following provision:

              Be it enacted . . . [t]hat no freedman, free Negro or mulatto, not in the military . . . and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition, . . . and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer . . . .”[14]

              The firearms confiscated would often be turned over to the Klan, the local (white) militia or law enforcement authorities which would then, safe in their monopoly of arms and under color of the Black Codes, further oppress and violate the civil rights of the disarmed freedmen.

              http://www.lizmichael.com/tahmasse.htm

              The South wanted to disarm blacks so they could terrorize them. It is pretty hard to terrorize an armed population.

              1. Some of the most armed countries on earth frequently experience such tyranny: Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Name one country where individual gun ownership stopped tyranny?

                1. R2, you’ve never heard of the Revolutionary War?

                  1. That one convinced me that R2’s not real, Art. SOMALLLLLLYYYAAAAAA

                    1. I think you have a point, Warty. He seems never to have heard of the American Revolution, The French Revolution or The Black Panther Party. I find that hard to believe.

                    2. The mobs in Paris were armed with what–firearms? You have an interesting and creative version of history. But I’m the one who isn’t so bright?

                    3. First off, I was thinking of the July Revolution. Second of all, I had the wrong impression of it. Mea culpa.

                  2. Read your history–the revolution was won by state militias and a national army with heavy weapons. This invidualistic understanding of how the revolution was won is not supported by history.

                    1. Gee whiz, R2…it’s almost like you’re saying somebody organized those “individuals with guns”. Who would guess that it would take organized forces to win wars?

                    2. All those individuals with cannons at home really won the war. The militias were much closer to the national guard than your vision of this individualistic gun owners.

                    3. And the French. Don’t forget the French.

                    4. Yes, I know. I know all about Baron Von Steuben, etc. But the fact is all those ‘private’ guns came in handy, didn’t they?

                    5. What national army, and what state militias? There was no nation and there were no states. You’ve got it backwards – the national army and the state militias grew out of the Revolution.

                      Gun grabbers, with their fetish for a central authority who decides when and under what circumstances self-defense is permissible, always try to draw some distinction between a militia and a group of armed citizens — but it’s the same thing. So a group of armed citizens sign up with the state and become a recognized militia (I guess – I don’t know how that works – I live in Texas. We’re all armed). The armed citizen doesn’t surrender her right to self-defense when she joins a militia.

                      I don’t understand gun control advocates’ seeming acceptance of “militias” as opposed to private citizens who own guns. Where do they think the militias come from? And do they think that if a state has a militia, that the members of that militia would never use their guns except at the direction of the state? Does that somehow suddenly make guns less scary, and invidiuals with guns less dangerous?

                      It’s a strange point of view – individuals can’t be trusted with firearms, but groups of individuals can be trusted with firearms so long as they are under the direction of…other individuals?

                      I find them perplexing, these people who think “the government” is the only one who can decide when it’s okay to do something…unless “the government” is under the control of the party they didn’t vote for, in which case “the government” is an imminent threat.

                  3. Cue nonsense about how guns can’t stop tanks and planes, ignoring the lessons from Iraq, the fact that planes and tanks are crewed by American citizens, many of whom would be unwilling to fire on fellow citizens and would actively resist a tyrannical government, the fact that American insurgents would have access to vulnerable civilian infrastructure that the military depends on to function, as well as vulnerable rearward bases, etc…

                    1. A partisan war like that would be a nightmare for all sides. They ignore the real lesson of Iraq or the American Revolution or any insurgent war, no government no matter how powerful can rule an armed population that refuses to be ruled. All they can do is kill a lot of people and cause misery. But they can’t rule until the people consent to be ruled. The only places where armed occupation has worked, Europe under the Nazis for example, was where the populace had no access to arms or Iraq currently, where the populace decided that it would rather be ruled by the current government than the one the insurgents were selling.

                  4. I haven’t been reading much of H&R lately, is R2 a ‘new’ troll?

                2. And some don’t. What the fuck is your point?

        2. So first, you both agree that gun ownership did not stop the KKK. “the end of active support by law enforcement” was caused by what? Oh wait, yes, the FBI. So how was I wrong?

          And how was the FBI effective?

          Did they not have guns?

          1. If you read what I wrote: “law enforcemnt stopped the Klan.” So you agree that it wasn’t individual gun ownership, but law enforcement that stopped the Klan. Organized forces (such as state militias and police) with firearms are quite different from individual gun ownership.

            1. Organized forces (such as state militias and police) with firearms are quite different from individual gun ownership.

              Yes, they can shoot unarmed black men to death with impunity. (Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, Sean Bell)

              1. I agree that law enforement can be a force for good or evil. I doubt that if Diallo, Dorismond, or Bell had been armed the outcome would have been different. The only difference would be that almost no one (except Reason) would question if the officers were justified in their actions.

                1. Have you ever heard of The Black Panthers, though? Not the New Black Panther Party. The Black Panthers, R2.

                  1. Damn, R2 probably won’t answer this one.

                2. “The only difference would be that almost no one (except Reason) would question if the officers were justified in their actions.”

                  Psssssst…he was unarmed you ignorant slut.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo

                  1. “if Diallo had been armed”. Admit you misread it.

                    1. Yes, I misread it.

                      But evidently you’re cool with the cops shooting blackfolk irrespective of their weapon status? Jesus, you really are a neo-klan.

                    2. As I said, “law enforcement can be a force for good or evil.” I certainly have seen both sides of law enforcement. I just don’t think that tyranny gets stopped by individual gun ownership.

                    3. So, if tyranny is not prevented by individual gun ownership, then we might as well just ban and confiscate guns from individuals? Is that your ultimate argument?

                    4. I just don’t think that tyranny gets stopped by individual gun ownership.

                      Then why do tyrants always want to confiscate guns?

                    5. I also think that cops are more likely, not less likely, to shoot armed individuals. I’m pretty sure that if they shoot armed inviduals, their actions less likely to be questioned.

                    6. I’ve never heard of a dog being armed with guns and yet cops shoot them all the time, even passive ones laying on the ground.

                      The cops even use the argument that they have to have certain dubious tactics as an element of surprise, but of course they never use such tactics when they KNOW whomever inside is armed. They wait outside and set up a perimeter. Don’t ask me why they don’t always do this, because I haven’t a clue.

              2. I worked with a homeless kid who grew up on the same block as Amadou Diallo. He said everyone in the neighborhood knew he was a threat to no one.

  16. “Thomas’s references to historic threats posed by white militias might have been dismissed if not for a resurgence of such groups in the year after Barack Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president. And if their behavior turns as violent as their racist rhetoric often threatens…”

    How many people have “white militias” killed lately? Now compare that number with the literally thousands of people murdered by black and Latino militias (AKA gangs). In those cases, the killers are treated sympathetically as alienated victims of a racist society. There are tons pictures all over the net of hip liberals flashing gang signs to signify how cool they are. Courtland Milloy is a demagogic asshole.

    1. In those cases, the killers are treated sympathetically as alienated victims of a racist society.

      By whom?

      1. Pretty much every liberal I know. One actually said gang members have a “socioeconomic gun pointed at their heads” and react by joining gangs. Most TV specials I’ve seen portray them sympathetically. And then there is pop culture, which glamorizes the “thug life.” Like I said above, there are pictures all over the net of whites –mostly hipster libs– flashing gang signs as if they’re rooting for a baseball team and not glamorizing a bunch of killers. Have you ever seen anything like this w/r/t militias, who have murdered roughly zero people?

        1. I haven’t seen anything like you describe, but I’ll take your word for it, vince. Well, most of the non gang-members I see flashing gang signs are suburban poseurs, not “hipster libs”.

          1. Vince,
            While urban culture may be glamorized, I haven’t seen many libs outside some crazy university ‘studies’ department being to sympathetic to gang crimes as some sort of result of socioeconomic problems. In fact, hipster libs are more likely to live in urban areas where they could be the victim of such gangs. I’ve lived around these gangs at points in my life (more the MS-13 type gangs) and certainly haven’t met many liberals in those areas sympathetic to the gangs. Everyone can find one ‘crazy’ racist teapartier or liberal who says something stupid and then use that to trash the whole group.

            1. I never said they were sympathetic to actual gang crimes, just the gang members themselves, who are treated as lost boys deserving of understanding and help. This stands in sharp contrast to white militia members, who have not behaved anywhere near as bad as gangbangers and yet are treated to ritual Two Minutes Hate sessions in the media. I was simply highlighting the radical double standard when it comes to organized militias.

        2. One actually said gang members have a “socioeconomic gun pointed at their heads” and react by joining gangs.

          Who said that?

          And then there is pop culture, which glamorizes the “thug life.” Like I said above, there are pictures all over the net of whites –mostly hipster libs– flashing gang signs as if they’re rooting for a baseball team and not glamorizing a bunch of killers. Have you ever seen anything like this w/r/t militias, who have murdered roughly zero people?

          They are all libs, and not just rebellious white suburban youths?

  17. +15 to courtland milloy for the invisible man reference at the end.

  18. You mean black people can look at similar situations and come to different conclusions? Good God, next you’ll tell me they’re free-thinking individuals!

    1. I laugh at this to keep from crying. It’s too true to be funny, though.

      1. Art, have you ever read Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary? Jersey’s post reminds me of

        AFRICAN, n.
        A nigger that votes our way.

        1. I haven’t read that. It seems like I’ll have to.

          1. I’ve always liked:

            HANDKERCHIEF, n. A small square of silk or linen, used in various ignoble offices about the face and especially serviceable at funerals to conceal the lack of tears.

            Link to the whole thing.

          2. You should. It’s a free download for iBooks, and Dover sells a version for $3.50.

        2. Warty, thank you for posting this. I have this book(given to me as a gift), and have never got around to reading it.

          Now I am flipping through it, and it is brilliant(ala guinness scientists).

          Rum, n. Generically, fiery liquors that produce madness in total abstainers.

          1. This is something I’ve been reading through lately, Bierce’s book on English Usage.

            http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12474/12474-h/12474-h.html

            Tags supplied free of charge.

  19. I’m beginning to wonder if the black community is beginning to tire of their self-appointed leftist leaders such as Milloy and Sharpton. People like Justice Thomas are incredibly positive role models that should inspire generations of young black kids yet due to their political leanings they’ve been harassed and ignored by the leaders of the black community.

    Decisions such as this where Thomas demonstrates his peerless comprehension of history and constitutional law. He should have high schools named after him, instead liberal NYT columnists are begrudgingly commending him while trying to manipulate the motivations for his decisions to fit his worldview.

    1. You mean, to fit their worldview.

      1. Yeah, I did. Preview, I need to use it more.

        1. I also meant to say “Decisions such as this demonstrate Justice Thomas’ peerless comprehension of history and constitutional law.”

  20. I love the way the “But if a law saves one life” crowd suddenly concludes that private gun ownership that saves individual lives isn’t worth it, and gun ownership is only worthwhile if it provides perfect, 100% solutions.

    1. It is similar to their objections to school choice. If school choice can’t solve every problem in the education system, it is of no value even though it would obviously help thousands of kids. In contrast, when asking for public school funding, helping even one child do better in school is worth bearing any burden to achieve. Odd how that works.

  21. I just read Milloy’s article, and I had to include this quote:

    Thomas agreed with McDonald, concluding that owning a gun is a fundamental part of a package of hard-won rights guaranteed to black people under the 14th Amendment. And just because some hooligans in Chicago or D.C. misuse firearms is no reason to give it up.

    While I agree that the underlying motivation of 14A was to garantee the BoR for freed slaves, I would like to point out that 14A garantees those rights for all of us regardless of race.

  22. If you don’t think armed resistance made a difference, do a little research on the Deacons of Defence.

    1. A couple of Reason articles by David Kopel:
      https://reason.com/archives/200…..vorite-law
      https://reason.com/archives/200…..rs-in-arms

  23. It’s time for white America to prove that they are not paranoid of black people. It’s been a long time since the Enlightenment yet our minds are still in the dark.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.