Defend the Second Amendment!

Capitalism Sucks! If Trayvon Martin Had a Gun Maybe He Would Still Be Alive Today. Defend the Second Amendment!
An essay by Wolf Larsen

(Wolf Larsen speaks only for himself, and is not a member of any organization.)

If Trayvon Martin had a gun maybe he would still be alive today, and maybe racist scumbag George Zimmerman would be dead instead. Not that I like irresponsible bloodshed, but it's obvious fists are inadequate for self-defense. According to George Zimmerman's own testimony, Trayvon Martin tried to defend himself with his fists, and look what happened to him.

What world are liberals living in? Black men need guns to protect themselves from racist thugs like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn.

It's too bad that more black men didn't have the Second Amendment during the days when the Dixiecrats and their military wing the Ku Klux Klan ruled the South. Gun control laws are hazardous to the health of black men trying to defend themselves against racist violence.

The liberals tell us to rely on the police. What nonsense! In the South, many of the Ku Klux Klaners who wear white sheets during the night are rumored to wear blue police uniforms during the day. The police are the hired thugs of the racist capitalist system, which was founded by the slave owners and slave traders.

White supremacy is a far bigger threat than black nationalism. One need only look at history to see this. However, just as white thugs influenced by white supremacy are a danger to black man, the fact is black thugs influenced by black nationalism are also a threat to others.

The militant black nationalism of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers is gone. Although I have disagreements with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, I myself feel respect for the legacy of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. However, by the time I was a kid in the late 1970s black nationalism had deteriorated into a racist and sometimes violent ideology. Instead of blaming the racist system, many black nationalists began scapegoating whites, Jews, and Asians for their problems. Thugs influenced by black nationalism became very hostile to interracial couples, particularly when the woman was black and the man was white.

Whether white or black everyone must have the right to defend themselves.

Some white liberals make the mistake of comparing the likes of racist murderers Michael Dunn and George Zimmerman with Bernie Goetz. This comparison is very misleading! Bernie Goetz did not stalk a young black man like George Zimmerman did. Bernie Goetz was a captive audience of four thugs on a New York City subway car. Michael Dunn, on the other hand, could have simply gotten in his car and driven away. In addition, a group of four thugs were demanding money from Bernie Goetz, and when you factor in inflation the amount of money the thugs were demanding was far more than any panhandler would ever ask for. Finally, the behavior of the four thugs accosting Mr. Goetz was nothing like the demeanor of a panhandler. Bernie Goetz acted in self-defense, and originally received support from many members of the black community, until Rev. Al Sharpton (who wore a wire for the FBI) went into action against Bernie Goetz. Bernie Goetz acted in self-defense, unlike the racist murderers Michael Dunn and George Zimmerman.

Liberal attacks upon the Second Amendment increasingly echo the loss of civil liberties in the United States in the wake of The Patriot Act, NDAA, and NSA mass surveillance programs. In addition, throughout history as governments become increasingly totalitarian they seek to take away the people's right to bear arms.

Of course, many liberals scoff at the idea that the US government is totalitarian. But one out of four people in jail in the world is in jail in the USA, and black people have experienced four centuries of brutal racist oppression, and working class whites and Latinos have also experienced brutal oppression as well.

Perhaps this is why the Black Panthers defended themselves, or tried to defend themselves, with the Second Amendment. In addition, coal miners have walked the picket lines with the Second Amendment to defend themselves against violent company thugs, scabs, etc.

The liberal argument that we should rely upon trigger-happy police officers to protect us is based on the mistaken idea that the government is there to protect everybody. The government is there to protect the interests of the rich. The government doesn't give a damn about black people. Nor does the government care about working class whites. The police have traditionally oppressed black people, and are always attacking the picket lines of working class people of all races.

And now I must make something absolutely clear. I do not support cop killing. Sometimes both liberals and conservatives have cynically misrepresented the points of view of others on the subject.

To continue, periodically mentally ill individuals go on a rampage and kill innocent people. Liberals try to use these incidents to promote their agenda to eliminate the Second Amendment. But if people don't have the Second Amendment, than how can they protect themselves against mentally ill individuals going on a violent rampage? And often the police don't arrive until everybody's dead.

In cities across America one can observe that the police protect the people that live in upscale neighborhoods, while in working-class and especially poor neighborhoods the police act more like domestic armies of occupation. The police are not there to protect black men from violent racist thugs like George Zimmerman. Instead, the police are there to enforce the racist rule of American capitalism.

Of course, in the past police forces were filled with white cops who shot innocent black men in the back. Now, police forces have more black cops who pretty much do the same thing.

The election of Barack Obama changed nothing. As the leftist newspaper Workers Vanguard correctly pointed out, Barack Obama promised black people nothing and that's exactly what he's given them. (By the way, I encourage everyone to read the very informative Workers Vanguard, www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/index.html)

Blacks and working-class whites should break from the Democratic Party. Working-class blacks, whites, and Latinos should unite to build a workers party. A workers party would defend the Second Amendment, and a workers party would fight against racist violence. A workers party would also fight for black equality, jobs for all regardless of race, doubling the minimum wage, equal rights for immigrants, free quality childcare for working women, equal pay for equal work, etc.

Working-class whites, blacks and Latinos must unite! It's important for working-class whites and Latinos to defend working-class blacks against racist violence. It is working-class unity across racial lines that made strong powerful unions possible. Strong powerful unions and working-class unity means better wages, benefits, job security, and better/safer working conditions.

Defend the Second Amendment! Remember Trayvon Martin! If Trayvon Martin had a gun maybe he would still be alive today.

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Where is that militia and how well is it regulated?

 

If you have a lot of people killed because there are many guns in circulation how does it help by putting more guns into circulation why not try and lessen the number of guns in circulation?

 

The logic is that the people believe for now that they can have another attempt at keeping their hands off the tools of self-destruction. The tools of production stay out of reach from the true occupied citizens because the mass man begins to believe in his individual shortcomings in order to feel UNEQUAL.

I, personally, don't need to feel equal to my idiot neighbours.:alien:

 

All the left wing would have to do is stop hating on the Bill of Rights and embrace it for what it is, and the consumer demand of gun hoarding will dissolve along with the NRA

 

But (just for a little bit of activism) how does the profit motive switch from automobile driving to weapons handling for the consumer cut back on the garbage waste situation? With the usual greedy weekend upon us are we about after-all to work out balanced budgets?:mickey:

 

I’ve seen no evidence that left wingers ‘hate’ the Bill of Rights however there is a problem with right wing Americans believing that it doesn’t cover American left wingers – just a few examples off the top of my head -

I mean freedom of speech – many members of the American Socialist Party including its leader Eugene Debs was put in prison for talking out against WWI

Many left wing unionists and supporters have been subject to unreasonable searches and seizures.

Right to a fair trial – hey have you seem footage of the McCarthy witch-hunts – not to mention the job done by the Un-American activities committees, also many people suspected of having left wing views lost their jobs because of loyalty trials.

I think been blacklisted, humiliated and harassed could be called cruel and unusual punishments?

And there often seem to have been right wingers waving their guns and hinting that they would ‘defend’ America from ‘socialism’

You might say that those things were in the past (except the last one) but to me that’s just because the there are very few real left wingers left in the US and the elites don't see them as a threat.

 

If you have strong distaste for one amendment, you might as well disregard the whole thing.

You suggested we lessen the number of guns in circulation. I'm merely offering sound advice.

 

coffee

That’s silly if you had a dislike for one law does that mean all laws are bad laws and so can be disregarded?

And as I point out above right wingers have in the past disregarded amendments when it suited them ironically often claiming they were doing that to ‘save’ them.

What advice – do nothing?

To me the desire for guns as a means of protection is just a symptom of fear, many Americans seem frightened of their society, this I theorise is because there seems to be a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control, and because they accept that they believe that is what others think about them.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

What would seem, from the outside, prudent and sensible would be to lessen the fear and reduce the numbers of guns in circulation what is seem as prudent and sensible by many Americans is to highlight the fearful and get more people owning guns.

 

When the power is granted to revoke one amendment, who's to say they'll stop there? Who's to say they won't take away a few more?

And what's your advice? Prohibition through force? Gimme a break dude. Everyone knows that doesn't work. Go over to the cannabis and psychedelics forums and ask anybody there if they think prohibition works.

My advice to the left wing is it simply accept that owning guns is a way of life. And that Americans, unlike other countries, won't stand for a gun ban. Remember my Vote Democrat thread? The moral of that story is that whenever a prohibition attempt is set in motion, the consumer demand for it will skyrocket. It's no coincidence how whenever the left wing has an election victory, the demand for guns goes up.

You speak of fear and how that's an issue. But still you have these left wing politicians and celebrities walk around with bodyguards, ARMED bodyguards at that. If we are told we should have nothing to fear, what do they have to fear? Why do they need bodyguards?

Another example is how the junk food company Hostess was facing bankruptcy and their products were gonna disappear from the shelves. Then the public totally lost their minds and the sale of twinkies and ding dongs skyrocketed.

Sure, people will still buy guns if no political force threatened to restrict them. But I don't think people will be purchasing and hoarding them as often. After all, you want to reduce the number of guns, right?

 

I believe that we need socialized medicine and education here. And everywhere, for that matter. I and my family also own guns. (although we never fire at anything living.) So--wtf? Am I considered conservative or liberal?

Not that it matters, but I wouldn't eat a fuckin' Twinkie if I was paid to do so.

 

Has anyone here ever seen Wolflarson post any reply after his initial diatribes? No. So fuck the troll, I say!

 

not really a troll


just a cut and paste spammer posting the same crap all over the internet

 

Aren't spam accounts supposed to get banned?

 

I thought spammers were those trying to sell some product or service

 

Coffee

Who are they?

As I’ve pointed out - in my view amendments have been revoked (it depends on your interpretation) more on the free speech thing below but I could add many more things including the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent in WWII and of course this ‘bill of right’ was in place during the whole time many parts of the US was practicing slavery.

Here’s something I wrote in an earlier thread on free speech -
The thing is that people, in the US, have paid for the ‘right’ of free speech with their ‘right’ to liberty, have been hounded for their political views. For example the socialist Eugene Debs was sentenced in 1918 to ten years in prison and had his ‘right’ to vote taken away from him for life. His crime was speaking up against the administration of President Woodrow Wilson and US involvement in WWI.

How the sedition act worked and the true worth of the first amendment is explained by Howard Zinn talking of the first Sedition act of 1798 (page 100 – A Peoples History of the United States)

“This act seemed to directly violate the First Amendment. Yet, it was enforced. Ten Americans were put in prison for utterances against the government, and every member of the Supreme Court in 1798-1800, sitting as an appellate judge, held it constitutional.

There was a legal basis for this, one known to legal experts, but not to the ordinary American, who would read the First Amendment and feel confident that he or she was protected in the exercise of free speech. That basis has been explained by historian Leonard Levy. Levy points out that it was generally understood (not in the population, but in higher circles) that, despite the First Amendment, the British common law of "seditious libel" still ruled in America. This meant that while the government could not exercise "prior restraint"-that is, prevent an utterance or publication in advance-it could legally punish the speaker or writer afterward. Thus, Congress has a convenient legal basis for the laws it has enacted since that time, making certain kinds of speech a crime. And, since punishment after the fact is an excellent deterrent to the exercise of free expression, the claim of "no prior restraint" itself is destroyed.

This leaves the First Amendment much less than the stone wall of protection it seems at first glance.

*
And the thing is that the action against such people as Debs was supported by many Americans, especially those on the right who claimed to be champions of American ‘freedom’. As to the ‘free press’ "far from opposing the measure, the leading papers seemed actually to lead the movement in behalf of its speedy enactment."

 

Coffee

Sorry did you not read the post?

What would seem, from the outside, prudent and sensible would be to lessen the fear and reduce the numbers of guns in circulation.

Did I mention prohibition? NO I DID NOT

I think if people stop been so afraid of their society and fellow citizens then they stop feeling they needed guns for protection.

Please don’t tell me you’ve one of these black and white either/or thinkers – who can only think in terms of EITHER a total free for all OR a complete prohibition?

The issue is a lot more complex than that and the answers need to be a lot more subtle.

Hell man do I have to repeat myself over and over – please go read this
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871

Again the issues around drugs (and I include alcohol and tobacco in there) is complex but some only want to frame it in terms of EITHER a total free for all OR an all out prohibition?

That’s simplistic and silly in my view.

 

coffee

Why, and why would you want to live in such a fearful society, it can’t be healthy.

Again why jump straight to the either/or position? (ban or no ban)

What left wing?

Why can you seemingly only think in terms of black and white?
Why are Americans so frightened they feel they need guns for protection?

And you make my point for me. You think they have something to fear, they think there is something to fear – it comes back to fear.

It seems to me that the message sent out about American society especially by those that are pro-gun is that it is violent and dangerous.

*
Why not come at the problem from the other direction – if we knew why Americans were so frightened that they feel they need guns for protection, we could tackle that and then they would not feel they needed a gun.

 

scratcho

Why does your family own guns? What type of guns?

 

That actually makes you Canadian. (Unless your guns are assault rifles)