Ann Coulter: Blacks should buy guns and join the NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimpeel

New member
Coulter, in her usual insightful style, wrote a column in which she suggested that Blacks, in the wake of the Martin/Zimmerman incident, arm themselves.

Her take is if the Left leaning media are correct, and Martin was stalked and murdered solely because of his race, that all Blacks should arm themselves and join the NRA. It was her way of turning the debate against the Left and their call for more gun control and the negation of the "Stand your ground" laws. If their argument is correct, she states, then they would be placing Blacks in further danger.

She notes that the first gun control laws, all the way back to the 1600's, stated that all Blacks, whether slave or freeman, were debarred the possession of firearms. She also cited the rise of firearms ownership by Blacks in areas controlled by the KKK which saw the reduction of the influence of the Klan. She also noted that Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a firearms permit after his house was firebombed simply because he was black.

She was on O'Reilly and the link to that video is below.

VIDEO LINK
 
Loaded statement. As of now, minorities in the NRA are, well, in the minority. Is she advocating this to boost membership in an election year? Is it to try to change the perceived image of the NRA? To me, it's a personal choice.
 
For those who don't feel like watching the video, Coulter makes her argument in print here:

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html

The article has two things I have to quibble about:

(1) The GOP helped impose gun control in California in the late 1960s (and the law -- the Mulford Act -- was signed by Ronald Reagan no less!) because members of the Black Panthers -- inspired by Robert Williams! -- were (peacefully) demonstrating carrying rifles. So to pretend that somehow the GOP is simon-pure on the issue is either because she's ignorant of that fact, or because she's just acting as a propagandist and is simply lying.

(2) I guess technically the NRA qualifies as the country's oldest "civil rights organization," but considering that it didn't seriously dedicate itself to the task of protecting the right to keep and bear arms until the '70s, I think she might be giving it a little too much credit.

The story of Robert Williams and the NRA connection is accurate. I'm not sure what 'filing for an NRA charter' did, exactly, since it's not like he couldn't have formed a militia himself (perhaps training? I'd be interested in learning.)

Apparently, Williams fled to Cuba and later China after Southern segregationists and bigots framed him for kidnapping before returning to the USA in '69. I guess they were worried that their friends in the Klan might get hurt?

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/negroeswguns_discussion.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

Whether or not Ms. Coulter is actually reaching out to anyone to help bring people to our cause, or just attempting to make people who already agree with us feel better about themselves (which seems to be a common thing with writers on the right) is, to me, an open question.
 
You're right in that this was something that started over 40 years ago (not joining the NRA--just arming themselves). That, you may recall, was when the back to the earth movement, the whole earth thing, was getting started. In fact, in a staff photo outside of the offices of the Whole Earth Catalog, one of the guys has a rifle, a Marlin lever action, I think. The circle is unbroken.

Who's Ann Coulter anyway? She an actress or something?
 
OK, some quick ground rules if this thread is to continue:

  • We are not discussing the details or merits of the Zimmerman case
  • We are not discussing general race issues
  • We are not discussing Ann Coulter's politics, personal habits, or appearance.

The idea that gun control is based on racial bias is nothing new. In fact, the racially-motivated disarmament of recently freed blacks was one of the motivators for the authors of the 14th Amendment. Back then, there was no question that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms, and Bingham and the other sponsors were motivated in part by their dismay over often forcible disarmament taking place in Alabama and several other states.

As of now, minorities in the NRA are, well, in the minority
Click to expand...
They are, but that's changing. The gun culture is diversifying, and if that's to continue, the onus is on us to shed the stereotypical frothing hillbilly image the media loves to attach to us.
 
They are, but that's changing. The gun culture is diversifying, and if that's to continue, the onus is on us to shed the stereotypical frothing hillbilly image the media loves to attach to us.
Click to expand...

I agree Tom , but we as an organization also need to help shed it as well. As a minority member, when I pick up my copy of American Rifleman, all I see are people who don't resemble my demographic. The NRA, if it indeed wants more members, to show this diversity, it needs to be more aggressive in recruitment as well. Use more minorities in the ads. Don't put a minority up on stage at a SHOT Show or convention and say "Look, we got one, you should join too". :D
The NRA doesn't do itself any favors helping to shed the sterotype. Look, if media is what people respond to, then use the media you OWN to combat popular perception.
 
icedog has a good point. It isn't helped by people like this:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/tim-mcnabb/how-not-to-win-and-argument/

I think we owe it to ourselves as a movement to police ourselves against trash like this. In the long run, if our movement is seen as being associated with elements like this, we will ultimately lose the battle for hearts and minds.

[ETA: Just so it's clear the photo/post in the link was taken at the NRA convention last week.]
 
Last edited:
Anyone showing up at a NRA function dressed like that guy should be asked to change clothes or leave. The only explanation the guy deserves is, "That’s not what we are about." If he refuses, he should be told to leave.

Several years ago a friend pointed out the same point icedog made about the magazine. It was a "I’ll be damned" moment for me because I’d never really noticed.
Problem is, how is this properly addressed? We need to make sure that black people feel welcome, but over representation of black members in pictures runs the risk of being accused of exploitation.

My .02 : I think most people don’t notice the absence of things that don’t directly relate to them. For me, the race of people in the pictures had just faded into the background. Mostly I was looking at the guns and the occasional babe in an ad:cool:. An avenue should be made by NRA for black members to provide input on how the organization could be tweaked to make them feel more welcome.
NRA did this with women pretty successfully, why not black people and any other demographic? Speaking of which … we still need more babes in the ads :D.
 
The history of African-American using firearms for self-defense is well known to the scholars of the issue.

I recommend The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement [Paperback]
Lance Hill (Author)

and a video based on it.

Entering Deacons for Defense in Google Scholar will bring up tons of related literature.

Also enter Shannon King and Ready to Shoot for a good historical article on Black Self Defense.
 
You guys have got it all wrong. Coulter's remarks were all about being anti Democrat and anti Obama. It really had nothing to do with Blacks, guns or the NRA.
 
It is obvious that Coulter's motivations are ...

However, Tom's decision and I concur is that we take this thread in the direction of supporting an inclusive gun culture and not be supportive of people who try to paint us all as yahoos.

Thus, whether Coulter is attacking Obama and Democrats, etc. is for her universe and not for discussing here.
 
The question of 'what to be done' is a good one.

It's one thing to call out someone like the person shown in the link I cited above -- an easy call, you might say. (In fact, the blog cited does not indicate what happened to this person, whether he was asked to leave, etc.)

If I were Black, however, I doubt I would feel comfortable hanging out with people who seem to have no issue with -- for example -- displaying replica Confederate battle flags. (The point is not to debate that issue, but rather to make the point that many are sensitive about the subject, and have good historical reasons to be from the 1860s and the 1960s.) I think I might feel unwelcome, and not inclined to support the organization. At the same time, there are undoubtedly a good number of people honestly and enthusiastically supporting the right to keep and bear arms, who have a different opinion on that particular issue (and who are already established as members.)

So, asking this as sensitively as possible, what do we do in terms of outreach to get around problems like this?
 
The article was a ripost to the left wing media which made the case that a man was profiled and killed because of his race. Her premise, which she stated in the video, was that if Blacks are being hunted down and killed for the crime of being black they should arm themselves against such attacks.

Was the article a tongue-in-cheek response to highlight the rabble-rousing of the Left? Partly.

Those who haven't watched the video should do so.
 
Ok, folks - my call.

If the OP wants to discuss the rabble rousing of the left and the snark response by Coulter - I think not.

That is politics and not a L and CR issue.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top