If The Blacks Had Guns Slavery Might Not Have Happened

unidentified20workers20in20cotton20field3

“I think Martin Luther King would agree with me, if he were alive today, that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history,” Larry Ward, chairman of “Gun Appreciation Day (GAD)” and president of Political Media, Inc., said on CNN today. “And I believe wholeheartedly that it’s essential to liberty.”

His anti-gun counterpart, Maria Roach of United for Change USA, calls the claim “ridiculous,” but is it?

I always get a little uncomfortable when people start invoking historical figures, and what they might or might not have thought about some current topic of debate. Let’s not guess at what Martin Luther King would and would not have thought.

But it’s interesting that the roots of American gun control are firmly in certain constituencies in the south, including the Ku Klux Klan, wanting to keep blacks unarmed and vulnerable. Before and especially after the Civil War, southerns were very concerned about armed blacks.

The point is, populations that don’t have a right to self defense up to and including an individual right to keep and bear arms are vulnerable to tyranny.

That’s a hard point to articulate in that Americans have enjoyed stable representative government for so long that the idea citizens need firearms for anything more than hunting is foreign to them. But the slavery example illustrates it perfectly.

Who wants to live in a society where the only people who have guns is the government?

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • HG

    It seems the debate over “assault weapons”, which are nothing more than tactical semi-automatic rifles, is hinging on the necessity of free people to resist tyranny. Of course it is true that these arms serve that purpose, but that is not the only purpose they serve. Police carry these very same weapons and yet they do not fight an army or in any war. Police carry these weapons to defend themselves against criminals who illegally obtain and use similar weapons. Since criminals have these weapons and will have these weapons regardless of any ban, it is necessary and within our 2nd amendment right to defend oneself from such a criminal force. We need semi-automatics to defend ourselves not just from tyrannical gov’t., but from the criminal element.

    • borborygmi

      Thats right if the criminal has an Uzi so should you. If he has an Rpg so should you. The thread is about Tyranny of Gov’t. By the Port logic everyone that can afford it gets to buy any weapon at all. This is such a silly argument. I really don’t need my neighbor owning a 50 cal. The Gov’t is coming to get you, bs and blather. Gee how I wish my next door neighbor had a good stockpile of fertilizer and diesel….

      How many honestly feel that this country is on the verge of civil war? The armed services are going to side with which side. The law enforcement , National guard, whose side will they end up on. YOu honestly believe this will happen because you are told you can only put 10 bullets in a gun instead of 30.

      • HG

        Right over your head, boby. The weapons I mention aren’t those of the battlefield (full-autos) they are the weapons of gangs and criminals (semi-auto). My argument stop short of military weaponry. Try to keep things in context.

        That said, this country doesn’t have to be on the verge of civil war, nor does the gov’t have to be threatening tyranny. That wasn’t the case when the 2nd amendment was written either. However, like the founders, we know that the potential for gov’t to overstep its authority is not imaginary and democracies have fallen in that manner. Therefore, the 2nd amendment is necessary.

        • borborygmi

          2nd amendment , necessary because we are a gun culture. IF the gov’t was going to come and get you your rifle/s would mean diddly squat. Thats were the bs and blather come from. You obviously wish to have gun control if you don’t want everyone to have military weapons. The Idea that you have an AR15 wouldn’t stop the gov’t from taking over. A red herring in the gun debate.

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        Actually, several of my neighbors had good stockpiles of fertilizer and diesel fuel.

        • borborygmi

          most likely a Poster of TImothy McVeigh on there wall or they are just plain ole farmers. If they are ‘close friends’ I am betting Tims portrait on one wall and Gordon Kahls on another.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Are you saying fertilizer and diesel fuel don’t kill people, people kill people?

  • joe mauer

    It’s now official, you’ve tipped over.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’m for vulnerable citizens being able to defend themselves.

      The question is, why aren’t you for that?

      • Snarkie

        Rob Port thinks blacks are vulnerable. How quaint! He ain’t talking about slaves, because those weren’t citizens.

        The talking head you are ‘bumping’ with this post is a clown and so are you for posting this crap.

        • awfulorv

          I’m surprised that you, Mr Hannitized, would restart racial controversy so soon after Trayvon’s passing. Are you not aware that statements such as your’s, written during what is normally seen as a period of mourning, to inflame the base instincts of racists in Rio Linda, Staten Island, Tulsa, and elsewhere, good Catholics all, imperils, and may have had a deleterious effect on Mr Martins, heretofore imminent, elevation to sainthood?

          • LastBestHope

            Snarkie = Hanni?

        • SusanBeehler

          I agree with you Snarkie, it is a circus of not 6 shooters but the semi auto 30 shooters.

      • tomorrowclear

        Deep thoughts, Rob, deep thoughts. One can only wonder how many unborn fetuses would be alive today had we armed them. Gosh you people bleed for the vulnerable.

        I have a feeling, call it a hunch, that the socialist liberals are the ones who kept guns from the slaves. Would anyone in the idiot brigade care to confirm that?

        • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

          They weren’t “socialist liberals,” they were Democrats, and it made no difference whether they were slaves or not.

          “After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities. In January 1866, Harper’s Weekly reported that in Mississippi, such groups had “seized every gun and pistol found in the hands of the (so called) freedmen” in parts of the state. The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan.”

          http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/?single_page=true

          • tomorrowclear

            See, I knew the brigade was up to this challenge, one way or another. Those damn Democrats, again.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            (Shrug.) No problem.

          • Wayne

            You don’t know that Democrats have f’ed it all up? You are a stupid sh!t.

        • Wayne

          Boy you liberals are stupid sh!ts.

      • SusanBeehler

        Yes so why don’t we give all the developmentally disabled and 90 years old guns because they are vulnerable citizens, don’t forget about arming our girls with guns too because the boys might want to take their barbies or BRATZ?

  • camsaure

    The same could be said for Jews in Europe.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Indeed.

      • Snarkie

        Guns, the genocide preventer!

        Oh horseshit. If you actually want to keep all those freedoms you bray about, act like someone with thought processes that are deserving of such freedoms, fricking idiot.

        • Hal109

          Freedoms are not granted based upon “thought processes”. Freedoms are unalienable rights bestowed upon us by our Creator. Read The Declaration of Independence and you will see that people don’t need to be found “deserving of such freedoms”.

          You have the thought process of a tyrant.

          • blackmamba

            What rights did the native Americans have, derp?

          • Hal109

            The same rights that you and I have.

          • Wayne

            You and Sparkie can go home now. Dumb sh!ts.

          • whitemamba

            Speaking of derp…

          • SusanBeehler

            And this is why the Creator endowed you with a gun, so you can procreate? Sounds like the thought process of enslavement to a thing, a gun.

          • Hal109

            You make no sense. I’m surprised that you agree with Snarkie that people need to be found “deserving of such freedoms” based on “thought processes”. Does this include all freedoms or just the freedoms that you want taken away?

      • SusanBeehler

        Really!?

    • SusanBeehler

      Yes, it took a World War with guns to stop the genocide so how does that compare to gun ownership by individuals? Gun owners are so desperate they are acting like these are legitimate arguments for their case. It just makes gun owners look like they have a bullet for a brain. Gun owners need to admit they are happy with no change because they are frightened some change might bring more change, that is truly what this “gun control” is about. Frightened to change the way they think of their “guns”, they rather say more guns than really look for the best solution to a complicated problem. Selfish!

  • matthew_bosch

    As with the KKK’s call for disarming African Americans, evil is the bedfellow of weapon confiscation.

  • HG

    Could you imagine if blacks in 18th century Africa has arms? I doubt tribal leaders would have sold so many overseas.

    • Snarkie

      You love this sh*t HG. It’s second grade level and latently racist. Yee haw.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        Yes, wishing that Africans had been able to defend themselves from bring sold into slavery is clearly racist.

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          If the North American natives had Uzis, they wouldn’t have been slaughtered and driven off their land by the white devils.

          • blackmamba

            Something tells me he might not want to confront that fact. Might just let that one slide under the rug, unnoticed.

          • Lou

            Good thing the Jews have Uzi’s, or they’d be driven off their land by Muslim mutts.

      • HG

        Point out the racism in my comment. Don’t just make empty accusations.

      • guest

        You love racism, that’s why you refer to your in-laws as the “SPICS.”

  • WOOF

    Possessing a weapon is grounds for summary execution
    in the United States of America. Was then, is now.

    • HG

      It may have been the law back then, but it sure isn’t the law now. Strangly, it’s the same ideology that fought racial equality and the 2nd amendment then, that today would disarm everyone today, blacks included.

      • WOOF

        This first sentence of a police report is enough. Deceased had a, (fill in the blank)…………firearm. Civilians need to embellish a bit.

        • HG

          You’re ambiguity is noted.
          What you should have said was that….
          Brandishing a firearm in the site of a police officer in a threatening manner, or using a firearm to threaten the life of an armed civilian…”is grounds for summary execution (ie., self-defense) in the United states of America”.
          Possession alone isn’t.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Means, intent, opportunity.

            Police use firearms to protect themselves or others from grievous bodily injury or death by STOPPING THE THREAT.

            If death of the assailant is a byproduct of such… it’s unfortunate but acceptable when done under the circumstances stated above.

            Once again YIP exemplifies the fact that he’s babbling incoherently.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            While rare opportunities might arise for a cop to protect others with his gun, he carries it primarily for his own protection.

          • two_amber_lamps

            And I would tend to agree…… But that’s as much to to with being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time….

          • WOOF

            Wouldn’t it be nice.

    • awfulorv

      If this were so half the black population would be gone, in two weeks time, by black on black, or the authorities. In passing, you and your mother, no doubt, are full of racist bullshit…

  • http://genelalor.com Gene Lalor

    Guns and Murders: America versus the World

    We’ve been hearing more and more gobbledygook lately from more and
    more self-serving politicians alleging that America is an ultra-violent country
    where murder is a favorite indoor and outdoor sport, where guns of all kinds are
    used frequently to kill, where our attorney general Eric Holder considers the
    possession of a gun shameful, where our president Barack Hussein Obama is
    reportedly planning on bypassing Congress to unilaterally, effectively repeal
    the Second Amendment by executive order and thereby strip Americans of their
    constitutional right “to keep and bear arms.”

    And all that is political poppycock fabricated and calculated to
    enable liberals to inflame the public into believing guns and not the people who
    shoot them are the fundamental problem and we should therefore support their
    gun-grab and disarm the American people. What AG Holder fails to mention is that
    guns are “cool” (his word) not in the general population but among black youth,
    and that really is very “shameful.”

    I received an email today from a reliable source.

    Always ready to trust–but compelled to verify as per the advice of
    the late, great President Ronald Wilson Reagan–I thought it was important to
    check out the email information on where America stood in the gun-murder line as
    compared to other large and small, free and dictatorial, pacifistic and
    militaristic nations of the world.

    It turns out, according to none other than the United Nation’s World
    Health Organization, that the USA is not only not overrun with
    murderous people in need of being restrained by government regulations but
    rather that we are pretty damned tranquil, civil, and law-abiding when it comes
    to using guns to kill and maim our fellow man.

    We are the third most populous country on the planet with over 315
    million residents and, based on firearm manufacturers’ production data, American
    civilians own approximately 300 million firearms, of which 100 million are
    handguns.

    Those latter numbers grew significantly after the recent shootings
    and especially since the Obama administration began making noises about
    “controlling” and confiscating guns. Indeed, the National Rifle Association
    reported on Wednesday that it gained over 100,000 new members in the 18 days
    following the Sandy Hook massacre.

    All those statistics, suggesting as they do that there are far too
    many weapons in the hands of civilians, would seem to play into the hands of
    liberals dedicated to government gun control and seizure. However, none of those
    stats bear any relevance to the reality that although many Americans have easy
    access to mostly-registered deadly weapons we generally use them legally and far
    more responsibly than other people.

    As substantiated by the U.N., nations with strict laws governing . .
    .

    (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=29535.)

    • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

      The U.S. is 4th among developed nations in gun homicides; 14th world-wide. Remove the gun-homicide rates of strict gun-control cities such as Washington, D.C., and Chicago and the U.S. gun-homicide rate plummets.

      • awfulorv

        Just guessing, but I’ll bet Pakistan, the bastion of Women’s freedom, ranks high on that list.

      • WOOF

        # 1

        South Africa:
        31,918

        Crime in South Africa

        # 2

        Colombia:
        21,898

        Crime in Colombia

        # 3

        Thailand:
        20,032

        Crime in Thailand

        # 4

        United States:
        9,369

        Crime in Moldova

        # 38

        Lithuania:
        16

        Crime in Lithuania

        = 39

        United Kingdom:
        14

        Crime in United Kingdom

        = 39

        Denmark:
        14

        Crime in Denmark

        # 41

        Ireland:
        12

        Crime in Ireland

        # 42

        New Zealand:
        10

        Crime in New Zealand

        # 43

        Chile:
        9

        • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

          “Crime” statistics!? Why, O Chief Among Imbeciles, are you giving me “crime” statistics?

  • Game

    That is an absolutely stupid story.

    First off, Slavery existed long before there guns, so “The Blacks” would not have been able to use guns to prevent slavery.

    2nd, even when “The Blacks” got guns and tried to revolt, (with the possible exception of Haiti) they were put down by “the Whites” who had more guns, and you know, an army.

    Finally, Native Americans had a lot of guns during the 18th and 19th century, and it did nothing to prevent them from being ran over, massacred and almost exterminated by “The Whites”, so to say that guns would have prevented the holocaust does not hold much water either.

    • Roy_Bean

      A few years ago the revisionist historians, like yourself, tried to say that gun ownership was quite rare at the time of the Revolutionary War because guns weren’t listed in wills when people died. Actually they weren’t listed on wills for the same reason that toilet paper isn’t listed on wills today. They were ubiquitous. You tell a lie and then repeat it in the hopes that people will believe.

      First off, slavery has existed since the biggest caveman figured out that he could force smaller cavemen to do things for him. This article was talking about race based slavery in the Americas. Since firearms were invented in the early 1200’s and Columbus landed in America in the late 1400s you are wrong, American slavery did not predate firearms.

      2nd, the Indians did have some guns but the last restrictions by the U.S. government on selling guns to Native Americans were dropped in …..1978….! You read it correctly, 1978. The Indians had guns, but they couldn’t have all they wanted. You are wrong again.

      Finally, Adolph Hitler restricted Jews, and anyone else that he wanted to exterminate, from owning guns. That’s why he was able to kill off 16,000,000 people in various gas chambers.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    As I recall, New York’s Sullivan Act was sold on a perceived threat from Italians and other European “undesirables.”

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    If the Donner party had pop tarts they wouldn’t have had to eat each other.

  • awfulorv

    Along these lines, can someone explain to me why millions of Irish starved to death, during the “Potato Famine”, when off shore their island were some of the finest fishing areas in the world?

    • borborygmi

      good question.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    Rob, it didn’t work that well for the Indians. Having weapons is one thing but having an advanced culture is another.

  • awfulorv

    I’ll wager the 4000(four thousand) Zulu warriors who attacked the 140 British soldiers ( one hundred forty) at Rorke’s drift, in present day South Africa ,1879, thought they had a sure thing going for themselves when they began their assault on the fort. After all they, part of an army of 20000, had just caught a 2000 man contingent of Brits in the open, at a place called Isandlwana, and annihilated them just two days previously, and TAKEN THE GUNS OF THE DEAD in the massacre. But it was not to be. The small garrison, vastly outnumbered by the Zulu forces at 30-1 , soundly defeated the 4000 warrior Zulu army who were EQUIPPED WITH RIFLES TAKEN FROM THE DEAD AT Isandlwana, in one of the most heroic defensive battles in history. You can look it up and, the movie, “ZULU”, depicting the battle is still available, if Obama hasn’t had it banned.

    • borborygmi

      good movie…ZUUUUUULLUUUUU……the zulu were armed with rifles but couldn’t shoot straight. THey British were well trained and in a defensive position. The movie also showed the futility of charging across open ground into modern weaponry. Also exhibited in WarHorse and by the British themselves in the Charge of the LIght Brigade. Catch the superior weaponry in the open with your superior numbers oops you get Isandlwana, Custers Last Stand, Khaiber Pass. I have the Movie so if they start censoring it you can borrow mine. Being liberal has its benefits because we are privileged under Obama and get to keep even banned items

  • tomorrowclear

    Just to clarify, is there a single shred of historical evidence that MLK Jr. ever supported the idea that what blacks needed was more guns in order to secure their rights? Any? I’ll be over here, waiting with bated breath for the answer.

    • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

      Dr. King’s whole non-violence thing was a sham, didn’t you know that?

      • tomorrowclear

        I think I’ve finally cracked it: Right-wingers all flunked history class.

        Yes, perhaps some others, like mathematics, but certainly history.

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          Willful ignorance with a note of bigotry.

      • camsaure

        Why do you hate blacks, you racist.

    • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

      Maybe not, but MLK owned guns, had armed bodyguards, and applied for a CC permit (which was refused).

      http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/19/martin-luther-king-civil-right

      • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

        Yes, he had armed body guards. How did that work out for him?
        If only more people had guns, huh flamer?

        • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

          You really can’t see how stupid your reply is? I would explain it to you but you wouldn’t understand that either.

        • tomorrowclear

          Damn you for stealing my thunder!!!

          Of course, that might be because he was saddled with Negro (colored) bodyguards.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Interesting piece: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

    “In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a “suspect idea,” and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race.”

  • blackmamba

    The Civil War might not have happened if Americans did not have guns. Think of all the lives that could have been saved.

    • Wayne

      What the F does that mean? Idiot. Typical liberal logic. Very stupid.

  • SusanBeehler

    Not according to Django; slavery was a practice which society went along with, just like abortion, just like many gun owners believe there is nothing except more guns to cure the gun violence. We have guns now, so how come we can’t stop abortion, it is because of our belief system and it is the law of the land, just like slavery was the law of the land. This was the most stupid argument coming from a gun activist.

    • guest

      “Not according to Django; slavery was a practice which society went along with, just like abortion”

      Please tell us specifically who was selling human beings as slaves and putting them on ships out of Africa.

      • SusanBeehler

        Who was buying them?

        • camsaure

          Democrats/liberals

          • SusanBeehler

            Hmm I thought the buyers were confederates, because democrats and the republicans did not believe in the secession.

Top