The alliance seems less “unlikely” when you remember that the American civil rights movement has long had a gun rights component. This dates back as far as the abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass, who declared in 1854 that “the True Remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill is a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap.”
Douglass continued to preach the virtues of armed self-defense throughout the rest of his life. In 1893, as the noble aims of Reconstruction were giving way to the horrors of the rising Jim Crow regime, Douglass argued that “the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge box.” Without all three securely in place, he maintained, “no class of people could live and flourish in this country.”
August 1, 2022
The New York Times Is Surprised To Find Public Defenders Championing the Second Amendment–Yet the civil rights movement has long had a gun rights component.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
I remember an article about Harriet Tubman, showing a photo of her with a revolver in hand, which she supposedly knew well how to use.
There’s also an entire chapter on guns protecting the 1960s civil rights movement, in “The gun culture and its enemies” edited by Tonso. The author of that chapter was personally involved, and spoke strongly on the need for guns in their hands to ensure their survival.
To me the truly funny part is no matter who champions what. Or the different arguments that are thrown around for or against firearms. From the streets, academia, or the halls of congress.
Deep down the common people of this country have kept their arms. And have grown. Developed better systems, ammunition, sights, optics, suppressors.
That is the hope of the future. Americans not allowing themselves to be disarmed, bullied by those they know to be morons.
And continuing to do that which they know to be right. No matter the circumstances they find themselves in.
Any wonder why they hate us?
We should ravel in being God’s petulant children.
I would NOT say that the New York Times journalists are surprised to find public defenders supporting the second amendment. In other words, I don’t believe it. Rather, I’d say that they’re pretending to be surprised. That’s a BIG difference, especially when it comes to determining the extent of their culpability and liability under U.S. law;
Just as important, I don’t think you’ll find that the first amendment was intended to protect conspiracy against the rights of the people, nor willful deception which, a reasonable and prudent person would conclude, might result in needless violence.
Therefore, once again, we see examples here of the fact that “stupidity, total ignorance, and an utter lack of enough interest to do even the simplest forms of investigation into an important issue that they’re reporting on as supposed professionals” are the best defenses we could grant to the defendants (journalists) in this case.
I for one am not willing to grant to them those defenses, and neither should you be so willing.
Here we have a criminal case, and most of us are, at the outset, serving as their de facto defense counsel by declaring them mentally incompetent. Surely that would be up to a psychiatrist, and subject to extensive fact-finding.