NEGROES WITH GUNS

NEGROES WITH GUNS. “every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America’s oldest and most august civil rights organization.”

CO2Insanity: Tired of the CO2 BS and all the other BS in the US and the world.

View Comments (39)

  • The NRA was on the front lines in the 60s when the civil rights issues where being fought. They protected black neighborhoods from those that wanted to burn them down and lynch people solely based on the color of their skin. This is a little known fact by most and it is ignored by the revs jackass and charlatan along with the rest of the race baiters and hustlers.

    Charleton Heston marched arm in arm with Dr. King on their way to Selma AL unlike barry. So the next time those in the Black Community wish to bash the NRA, just remember it was us who were standing right there defending you and your rights. Not the dim wits how claim to have your best interest at heart. They just wish to oppress and keep most voting the party line while throwing a few crumbs off the table.

    • I find it so ointeresting that practically every slave owning family is rememered by name with records of how many slaves. how much they were "worth" monetarily and who had children with their enslaed women. But nobody remembers events such as you described, not the number of whites who were jailed and beaten right along with blacks in the CIvil RIght movement. Selective memory?

      • I have black cousins, why? because they loved their former masters so much they chose to become part of the family when they became freed. I don't know if it was pre or post enforced emancipation, but I'm thinking it was pre from what I've heard about it. Word of mouth and all that.

        • Slaves had no last names. They were not allowed their African names for the most part, and of course the children never got African names. Want to know why we have names like Shaquille O Neill? It's not for his Irish 3rd great grand father. Howse slave had a very different relationship with their owners than field hands, and were treated differently. Many of them continued to live with thei rmaster's after emancipation. And a whole bunch took on their owners name as a surname.

          • I'm sure most of them had absolutely no idea what to do after emancipation and war's end.. Tis a great pity. I like to hope that at least a few of the mothers found their lost children in the years after

          • Apparently a few did at least. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s shpw on geneology has found records of a few. Found 1 record of a couple whose owner freed them and their children upon his death, and left the parents a huse and like 200 acres of land. He felt the kids would be ok, but that the couple would have it harder, since they were older. I do not in any way adhere to human slavery. But I think we need to remember that slavery had much different connotations at that time. Women were held in virtual slavery. Blacks owned other Blacks. While many slave owner were sadistic SOB's. some owners had a nearly familial relationship with their slaves; and many set them free before the Emancipation proclamation. Whites in Massachusetts kept slaves, just fewer in number because they dod nopt have the agrigultural labor nedds of the South. The whole concept was faulty from its core, and with or without the war, would have eventually crumbled under its own weight.

  • Early this morning an elderly black woman was awakened by someone kicking in her door. She picked up a gun and shot down the hall. The guy took off. Someone else in the neighborhood was robbed about the same time. This was the 2nd time someon had tried to break into the elderly woman's home.

  • A lot of people are now purchasing guns, not for protection from minorities, but for protection from the government. Don't think for a minute all these overpaid asshats in positions of power would like nothing better then a totally disarmed populace.

  • Ann always gives me pause to ponder and contemplate. There was much in her article that I was totally unaware of. It is a shame that the conservative media, such as it is, can't seem to set the record straight about all the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' perpetrated by our partners on the other side of the aisle! But then again, if they did, we wouldn't have this ass kicking site to wax loquacious on!

    • Exactly hisham. It is much easier to round everyone up when you don’t have to worry about the possibility of them protecting themselves and their loved ones. Check your history and you will see what happens when a populace is totally disarmed.

  • Sorry for the long post.

    I knew a black professional lady who lived in a dangerous area of LA. She helped set up patrols for the area to keep the gangs out. She was also rabidly pro gun control. One day at work she was commenting on a hypothetical situation where she would use a gun to take out someone trying to rob or killer. I asked how she would get the gun if her own proposals for gun elimination were followed. She blithely said she would simply purchase the gun illegally from the local drug dealers. So much for thinking a position through.

    There's been a loosening of anti-gun fervor in the last few years and I put it's beginning when the internet and some newspapers began publishing maps showing gun deaths by location. They were horrifically centered in the black communities with a tiny number of outliers elsewhere. It struck me then, as I expect the rest of the country, that gun control is, in fact, a racial issue - hidden by the PC necessity of never mentioning where all the murders are occurring. It's ironic that this civil rights issue, the one which could really free the black population from a nasty crime wave has been squashed by the left.

    • The inability of the protected class to think long-term has been a major deterrent to their preservation and advancement.

      • Who really needs to think rationally and long term when someone or something else will always be there to care for you?

    • That and if the Government would stop subsidizing single black mothers.

      I am EXTREMELY Pro Gun. In fact, I believe that the Constitution gives ALL individuals the right to own, keep and carry "every terrible implement of the soldier." However, the root to high ethnic crime is the
      deconstruction of the family, the promotion of government as care-taker and then the systematic de-emphasis of men and fathers as intelligent and/or important to children and society. If you want to see what the world would look like if only women ruled...just look at places like Detroit. The feminization of society has made the men soft and dependent. Don't get me wrong, I love women and without them...well, without them there would be nothing. But a properly functioning society needs women to feel, nurture and care, it needs men to analyze, provide and protect.

        • and tactical nukes as well.

          I'm curious where in the Bill of Rights does it give the description of weapons that are and are not allowed to be owned by the individual?

          • Aye, there's the rub, as somebody famous once said. I'm not sure even then anyone considered that an ordinary citizen could arm up a fishing boat with a few cannon just for the halibut; other than artillery pieces like that, I'm not sure if there was a significant, if any, difference between what a soldier might carry and what Farmer Brown might have. In some cases, for instance the legendary backwoods squirrel rifles, what the old folks at home had was in some ways superior --one-on-one-- to a simple musket. So where is the line? Should there be a line at all? If you're going to argue that we should be permitted to go down the store and buy a full-auto .50cal with no particular licensing requirements, would you also extend that to a box of grenades? Does "arms" only mean one particular type or class of weapon? Where does that distinction come from, if it's not in the 2nd Am.?
            (Well, the correct answer is "from substantive and relevant case law setting precedents." But that's the lawyer's answer!)

          • You sound a little like the anti-gun Progs who say that the second amendment was written when muskets were the only gun available, so only muskets should be legal now.
            I think that the framers of the Constitution would, even today, agree that the individual should be allowed to keep any weapon that was available. They didn't write the Second Amendment to protect hunting rights, but to allow for the individuals right to protect his person and property from criminals and a tyrannical government. Remember that their idea of government was not to restrict the individual in any way other than to protect us from harm by other individuals. If you own a flame-thrower or a tank or a tactical nuke and you injure or kill another individual, you should be punished for that crime, but until you have committed that crime there is no logical or legal reason for restricting the individuals right to private property for private use. It is no ones business what property I own or how I use it, as long as I don't harm another's person or property.

          • ha haaaaaa, actually I hardly ever think of Cracked anymore, although in my youth it was a near staple!

            I just did a keyword search and boom, that's what i found. ;)

          • I LOVE Tannerite. That is some FUN stuff. It is not as dangerous as some might think. It take a bullet with at least a 200 fps velocity to cause an explosion.

            ps.
            The Supreme Court has allowed MANY laws to stand that were not Constitutional.

          • "The Supreme Court has allowed MANY laws to stand that were not Constitutional."

            I find this to be an interesting statement. What other authority exists to counter the ruling of SCOTUS on matters of Constitutionality?

            Its more interesting because, as I undertstand it, the power of judicial review is something SCOTUS determined for itself. The phrase "judicial review" doesn't appear in the Constitution.

          • I think what Pink Floyd was getting at is that he disagrees with some of SCOTUS's decisions. I think we can all go along with him on that.

          • I never really dug into it, but who do you think the Founders intended to perform that function? Seems like a hole and SCOTUS got there first

            (edit) AH I see your 2nd post.. You may answer that the function wasn't necessary at all. That's an interesting angle

          • One other point: Article 3 does not give the courts interpretive powers either. I, as an originalist, believe that the Constitution was simply written so that it would not have to be interpreted. The Federalist Papers explains the rationale for the Constitution's various articles and clauses. For example, Federalist 42 explains that the Commerce Clause was a means to keep the states from imposing tariffs on each other and other protectionist measures.

          • Marbury v Madison is unconstitutional and so is McColloch v Maryland. Those two early 19th century decisions helped get us where we are with SCOTUS bestowing itself with all sorts of powers that appear no where in Article 3.

  • Black criminals are already well-armed; there is no reason law-abiding black people should not be just as well-armed, particularly in view of the black-on-black crime statistics.

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015