Role of weapons and firearms in the history of civil rights

[CountryGent]

The latest In Range TV Q&A was, candidly, pretty bad. There was, however, a good question asked: "What is your take on the role of weapons and firearms in the history of civil rights or what sorts of changes over time do you see in their use within the civil rights movements in your knowledge areas."

How would you have answered that?

Read More

 

[ZigZagZeke]

1967...CA state capitol building in Sacramento.



And suddenly the CA government was all for gun control...

 

[Brownsalamander]

I too enjoy participating in conversational threads OP'd by undercover ATF agents, who are baiting violent extremists to vocalize their ambitions.

*wink wink*

 

[CountryGent]

I too enjoy participating in conversational threads OP'd by undercover ATF agents, who are baiting violent extremists to vocalize their ambitions.

*wink wink*

 

[Brownsalamander]

I'm being a smartaleck. Don't mind me.

 

[gooses]

Gun rights are civil rights. Much more effective than cans of soup!

 

[Flopsweat]

Gun rights are civil rights. Much more effective than cans of soup!

My boy Joe is a much better songwiter:

 

[gooses]

My boy Joe is a much better songwiter:

Haha that's one of my favorites!

♫♫ You don't need a flamethrower, and you don't need a tank ♫♫

I feel like the two corrupt old men oughta convert a SxS into a can cannon and collab!

 

[Soli]

"What is your take on the role of weapons and firearms in the history of civil rights or what sorts of changes over time do you see in their use within the civil rights movements in your knowledge areas."

Our system is built to be incremental and assumes that use of weapons (ie, force) won't be in the mix. It was created explicitly to solve the politics of might makes right, while acknowledging that might makes right is the natural state of politics.

Weapons have two uses in politics, their actual use and the threat of their use. The brilliance of the 2nd is that it ensures the threat is always there. But it assumes everyone involved doesn't WANT to actually use them, that everyone sees their use as so negative that they'll go to great lengths of compromise to avoid their use.

In that kind of system movements work incrementally, without use of force. People get passionate, politics get hard ball, some win and others lose and often nobody gets what they want in total. But no one is crushed; destroying the opposition is simply NOT DONE.

It's why I harp on culture; without a culture that respects incrementalism and sees the use of weapons in politics as something to avoid the system can't work. The current "movements" know this, that's why their goals are not what they state, rather it's to destabilize (remove legitimacy from the police, the economic system, the family/social systems, etc) the entire incremental system. Without agreement on the incremental way of doing things we go back to might makes right.

(History by my read shows that such folks live in an illusion of how effective they'll really be when might makes right. They end up not as mighty as they thought they'd be. Even if their side wins lol.)

So, my answer to the question is "None." A slave revolt is not a civil rights movement. It's a revolt. An "uprising" to "liberate" (ie, destroy and steal) land/property is not a civil rights movement. It's a revolt against the legal order. Revolutionaries are not interested in a "civil rights movement," they're interested in revolution.

 

[L308]

There is at least one book on this subject: Negroes and the Gun, by Nicholas Johnson. It is available on Amazon.

 

[Knobgoblin]

I'll put down the serious thoughts first, before I start goofing.
If you consider the push for workers rights/organizing in the US as civil rights based, then I would say weapons and firearms figured prominently.
Strikes and strike breaking turned violent often enough. Most of the actual gun toting being done by police or "security " forces. If access to private firearms by regular citizens wasn't an American reality, I wonder if they would have fought as hard for what they wanted?

 

[Knobgoblin]

I'm being a smartaleck. Don't mind me.

This guy?

 

[Flopsweat]

This guy?View attachment 834914

Related story: In my early 20's I ran across a very clean looking subtly hot rodded, I want to say either a Camaro or a Nova, cruising the block on a Saturday night. The license plate was RACEME. He was goosing the throttle at every remotely racy looking car that came by him. Tried it on me and I laughed at him. Several times later that night I saw him pulled over behind another car with a marked car either in front or behind him.

 

[Sandaholic]

"What is your take on the role of weapons and firearms in the history of civil rights or what sorts of changes over time do you see in their use within the civil rights movements in your knowledge areas."

Our system is built to be incremental and assumes that use of weapons (ie, force) won't be in the mix. It was created explicitly to solve the politics of might makes right, while acknowledging that might makes right is the natural state of politics.

Weapons have two uses in politics, their actual use and the threat of their use. The brilliance of the 2nd is that it ensures the threat is always there. But it assumes everyone involved doesn't WANT to actually use them, that everyone sees their use as so negative that they'll go to great lengths of compromise to avoid their use.

In that kind of system movements work incrementally, without use of force. People get passionate, politics get hard ball, some win and others lose and often nobody gets what they want in total. But no one is crushed; destroying the opposition is simply NOT DONE.

It's why I harp on culture; without a culture that respects incrementalism and sees the use of weapons in politics as something to avoid the system can't work. The current "movements" know this, that's why their goals are not what they state, rather it's to destabilize (remove legitimacy from the police, the economic system, the family/social systems, etc) the entire incremental system. Without agreement on the incremental way of doing things we go back to might makes right.

(History by my read shows that such folks live in an illusion of how effective they'll really be when might makes right. They end up not as mighty as they thought they'd be. Even if their side wins lol.)

So, my answer to the question is "None." A slave revolt is not a civil rights movement. It's a revolt. An "uprising" to "liberate" (ie, destroy and steal) land/property is not a civil rights movement. It's a revolt against the legal order. Revolutionaries are not interested in a "civil rights movement," they're interested in revolution.

Incrementalism isn't always a good thing. McCarthy warned about communism and how American institutions were being infiltrated. Through incrementalism, what he warned about has come to pass. How many Americans now think that Communist China is the shining example of a perfect nation?

To the O.P.'s question, in your last paragraph, you don't see a change in civil rights? On one hand most people would say that we have made large strides in acknowledging the rights of all Americans. On the surface I agree. But on the other hand there are many more restrictions on bearing arms that Americans must consider. Back to the incrementalism point, it is just a matter of time until the Diane Feinsteins of the world put pen to paper and tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them all in. And if might makes right....(which I agree that it does, whether one likes it or not) how will that affect our civil rights?

Perhaps a bit esoteric.

 

[CountryGent]

There is at least one book on this subject: Negroes and the Gun, by Nicholas Johnson. It is available on Amazon.

Thanks for recommendation. Checking this one out.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Human beings haven't changed that much over the years.
We still have much of the same issues that have plagued mankind since day one , only with different methods of committing the issue.

Perhaps one should consider the owning of arms a civil right as well as a "unalienable right" as in without arms , one may have a difficult time with exercising the Rights of : "life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Civil Rights :
Noun
The rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

Unalienable Rights :
Describes things , especially rights that cannot be taken away , denied , or transferred to another person.

It seems to me , that in order to maintain civil rights , one must also maintain and safeguard one's unalienable rights...all of which may require the use of arms.
Andy

 

[41mag]

The complexity of asserting the Bill of Rights are challenging enough in the abstract. Toss in random passion, criminal intent, mental derangement, and rampant political obsession. Add the loss of rational solutions to the paradox of securing liberty of one without constraining the rights of another. Here we are.

 

[Stomper]

I'm being a smartaleck. Don't mind me.

AHEM, There can only be ONE smartaleck around here!!!!

 

[Stomper]

Gun rights are civil rights. Much more effective than cans of soup!

I dunno, canned chili con carne is some serious business.... in the end.