Elaine Brown: The position of the Black Panther
Party was that black people live in communities occupied by police
forces that are armed and dangerous and represent the frontline of
forces keeping us oppressed. We did not promote guns but, rather, the
right to defend ourselves against a state that was oppressing us --
There were innumerable incidents in which police agents kicked in
our doors or shot our brothers and sisters in what we called red-light
trials, where the policeman was the judge, the jury and the
executioner. We called for an immediate end to this brutality, and
advocated for our right to self-defense.
Former Black Panther leader Elaine Brown explains that gun ownership helped her and the members of her organization defend themselves against police oppression. She also talks about "overthrowing the system" and being anti-capitalist. Those views are extreme, but as far as self-defense goes, you have to be alive to exercise your civil rights. It's also a good reminder that the right to own a gun was saving lives against racist oppression within living memory
Star Parker is another voice for gun rights as civil rights
Parker said: "Well, I'd say they need to revisit their history --
black history, black slave history, black Jim Crow history -- and they
should visit the histories of other tyrant nations where we had people
like Hitler and Stalin and Mao. Every single time there is someone who
wants to take away all other rights of the people, the first right they
take away is your right to bear arms."
"I believe that the the Congressional Black community, or the
Congressional Black Caucus is absolutely out of step with black America
today on this issue," Parker said.
More details about denying the right to keep and bear arms to slaves and freed blacks
is available. The timeline covers laws from 1640 to 1995.
Dr. John R. Lott is a scholar of world repute who became very famous for his work concerning gun control. To say that Dr. Lott is an expert in his field of study may well be an understatement. His More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws is the seminal work on the influence of guns upon our society. His new book, The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong will undoubtedly add to his reputation and also to the discussion of gun legality in general. His subject matter and findings could not be more politically incorrect, and it has made him a target of the liberal media, but we are fortunate that he has persevered.
- Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
- Property should be owned by people, not government.
- All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
- The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
- Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
- The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.
John Ross is a self-described "capitalist," an investment adviser, a former political candidate, a fiction author, and (from what I hear) a darn good shot. A few weeks ago, I had a chance to pester him with a long list of questions about his first novel, Unintended Consequences. And pester I did. Below is a transcript of our conversation.
Please note: this interview has spoilers for the book. If you haven't read it, it's worth it -- it combines a detailed history of gun control in the United States with a speculative and engrossing depiction of the potential consequences.
At the rate they are going, if things get out of control (say, if we go into Syria at the same time we have a conflict in North Korea) the troops will be light if we ever have to fight a real enemy, one that actually has a weapon, without all the deception about how powerful our so-called enemy is, or was. If we have a real enemy, I wouldn't put it past them to start the draft up again. I would like to bury that notion. I have a bill in that would repeal the draft registration law.
An exclusive interview with the two presidential candidates on gun rights, conservation and other issues that affect your hunting and fishing.
In many respects it is difficult to imagine two candidates less alike than President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. Even geographically, the contrast between their respective hometowns?the hardscrabble environs of Midland, Tex., and the historical elegance of Boston, Mass.?is extreme. Politically as well, the two candidates have different views on a host of issues. But when it comes to the sportsmen?s vote, these two men want your support and they want it badly. Here, in their own words, Bush and Kerry, both self-described sportsmen, answer key questions on gun rights, conservation, public-land access and other issues that will affect your ability to fish and hunt and enjoy the outdoor traditions you hold so dear.
Just remember that when Kerry talks about support for "gun rights" or the second amendment, he doesn't seem that as contradicting his many votes in favor of gun control laws. The man hasn't seen a gvun control law he doesn't like.
I'm running for the Presidency of the United States because I can't stand what's happening in America. I just feel like America is becoming a police state, a totalitarian country. We're losing our rights every day, nobody running for office that I can see is going to change it, and so I just put myself out there because the Libertarian Party is the only Party that has the principles that can change things.
I believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights at its very core, and when I look at the candidates running on the Libertarian ticket, I don't think they have a high enough profile to get the attention that's necessary to make a difference, so I just decided to put myself out there to Libertarians so that they could say "look, here's Aaron Russo: he's got six Academy Award nominations, he's won an Emmy, he's won a Tony, he's won a Grammy, an NAACP Image Award, a Golden Globe nomination". I've got all this stuff that the press will use if I'm the nominee, that can give the party a higher profile, that'll give freedom a higher profile, and that will allow us to put a fight up against what's happening.
I put myself out only because there's no one in the Party running who has a higher profile than I, that can make the differences.
<-- Prev Displaying results 0 - 7 of 7 Next -->
Read this group via RSS or
Enter your email address to receive email updates for new entries in this group: