[HTML1]

“The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in [McDonald’s] favor, partly based on the arguments decades ago that black Americans in the deep South needed guns for self-defense against widespread Jim Crow racism, including attacks by the Ku Klux Klan. It’s an interesting premise, but I think many African-Americans today understand the real potential for tragedy from handgun violence and therefore don’t believe more guns make their communities safer.” – Eugene Kane, columnist, jsonline.com

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

10 COMMENTS

  2. Maybe the self appointed leaders of the black community should let blacks decide for themselves instead of constantly going public with rant about what blacks think. You don’t see other ethnic groups with spokesmen on TV like this.

    Blacks are no different than anyone else. They can defend themselves responsibly and do. To treat them as people in need of guidance is racist. How ironic for their “leaders” to assume they have to lead them to the promised land.

  3. Otis McDonald, a black man wanted a gun for self defense. As we all know, he took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, McDonald v Chicago.

    Best as I recall, Mr.McDonald’s case was not about race. It was about a decent man who did not want to be a victim, regardless the race of the perpetrator.

    Mr. McDonald’s needs are universal.

  5. Good to see a victory against the matriarchal gun-control system entrenched in Chicago. How the Klan ties into this in 2011 escapes me. It seems like a loose argument based upon geography alone. I’m glad the man won the case and so are many sane Chicago dwellers. Although it is rather disconcerting that these victories only come when folks appeal to liberalism.

  7. First off, what an awesome post. Robert F. Williams was from North Carolina, read the book. that man is one of the bravest individuals from that era and movement. My master’s thesis is on Black American self defense in the civil rights movement. RFW was truly a visionary and paved the way for the DDJ organization in LA and MS. It would be interesting to speculate how the civil rights movement would of been difference if MLK had taken security more seriously..

  8. Robert,

    After reading the interview with Kane, I must respectfully disagree with one of your points. It is simply not true that armed self defense is “easy” without training and much practice. Buying and carrying a gun, without training, makes you dangerous in most instances and not to potential criminals; but to yourself, your loved ones and those who happen to be around you.

    Firing a handgun effectively and accurately is difficult enough on the range under controlled circumstances. In personal defense scenarios, it is very, very difficult and you do us a disservice by suggesting that the average joe can strap on a gun and be ready to go because this is simply not the case.

    Like it or not, people should be trained to carry and operate their gun.

    • What you, and most other people here, call training won’t prepare you to use a gun in a real world situation. All it does is teach you how to use a gun with a certain level of proficiency, i.e., what the military calls qualification. All qualification does is certify that you can safely handle a gun and hit a static target. Any person with a few hours of instruction on safely handling a weapon can get good enough to meet military qualification standards if he is diligent in his practice. I am pretty much self taught. I had to qualify once with a 45 40 years ago and didn’t do much after that until two decades later.

      Learning to think tactically is the key to effective defense gun use. If you can’t do tactics you can be Sergeant York on the range and end up dead in the streets or in your home. I am not “deadeye dick” but I understand tactics. I may fail for the want of courage or coolness if the time ever comes but I know that if I hold up my end of bargain and I get beat it will be because the bad guy is better than I am or I will be SOL on options.

Comments are closed.