I don’t suppose they’ll ever learn, because that would require them to think


Over and over and over again, we hear the same bleating from those who are against this, or that, or the other thing.  They blame the instrument rather than the cause.  Those in favor of more gun control are particularly guilty of that error – and one of their representatives has just made it again.

This deadly connection between white supremacy and guns runs throughout our history. In 1866, armed Confederate loyalists stormed the Louisiana Constitutional Convention, murdering 34 Black Americans in an attempt to block suffrage for freed slaves. In 1898, an armed White mob in Wilmington, N.C., proclaimed a “White Declaration of Independence,” then killed at least 60 residents before replacing the multiracial local government with white supremacists. In 1921, mobs of armed White residents of Tulsa attacked the Black neighborhood of Greenwood, murdering as many as 300 Tulsans for the crime of being Black and successful. In 1955, ­Emmett Till was tortured and shot in the head by White vigilantes. And today, mass shootings – from the church in Charleston to the supermarket in El Paso to the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis. — have been committed by white supremacists filled with hate and armed with a gun.

Simply put, if the Confederate flag is the primary symbol of white-supremacist hate, the gun is its deadliest weapon.

We have begun, as a nation, to slowly address the problem of the Confederate battle flag … But the truth is that taking down symbols of hate means very little unless we also disarm people who are inspired by them — and on that front, our nation has lagged woefully behind. We’ve failed to pass any significant federal gun-safety bill in the past 25 years; we’ve allowed armed extremists to brandish long guns at state capitols and intimidate peaceful protesters, and our background-check system remains riddled with gaps and loopholes.

. . .

I’m a reverend, so I promise that nobody appreciates your thoughts and prayers more than I do, but they are not enough unless they are paired with meaningful action. That action must come first and foremost from our leaders, beginning with the Biden-Harris administration, but in truth the responsibility to advocate for gun safety extends to all of us. Because if we do not come together around this issue now, in the weeks after our very democracy was held at gunpoint, then I fear that hate-motivated gun violence will not only continue but also accelerate.

There’s more at the link.

For a start, of course, many of the greatest names in the movement to abolish slavery and restore civil rights for black Americans held diametrically opposite views.  There’s a rich tradition of using firearms for self-defense in the black community, as chronicled in Nicholas Johnson’s book “Negroes And The Gun“.

The blurb for the book reads:

Chronicling the underappreciated black tradition of bearing arms for self-defense, this book presents an array of examples reaching back to the pre-Civil War era that demonstrate a willingness of African American men and women to use firearms when necessary to defend their families and communities. From Frederick Douglass’s advice to keep “a good revolver” handy as defense against slave catchers to the armed self-protection of Monroe, North Carolina, blacks against the KKK chronicled in Robert Williams’s Negroes with Guns, it is clear that owning firearms was commonplace in the black community. Nicholas Johnson points out that this story has been submerged because it is hard to reconcile with the dominant narrative of nonviolence during the civil rights era. His book, however, resolves that tension by showing how the black tradition of arms maintained and demanded a critical distinction between private self-defense and political violence.Johnson also addresses the unavoidable issue of young black men with guns and the toll that gun violence takes on many in the inner city. He shows how complicated this issue is by highlighting the surprising diversity of views on gun ownership in the black community. In fact, recent Supreme Court affirmations of the right to bear arms resulted from cases led by black plaintiffs. Surprising and informative, this well-researched book strips away many stock assumptions of conventional wisdom on the issue of guns and the black freedom struggle.

Even before I’d heard of that book, I knew of famous comments on the subject by black leaders.  For example:

Surveying the landscape in the summer of 1892, Ida B. Wells advised, that “the Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Black home.” This was no empty rhetorical jab. She was advancing a considered personal security policy and specifically referencing two recent episodes where armed Blacks saved their neighbors from lynch mobs.

There are many similar examples in our history.  Black leaders recognized that guns can be tools of freedom, as well as oppression.  Do away with them for the latter reason, and you also destroy their role as guarantor of the former.  Is that really a good idea?  I think many throughout history would answer with a resounding “No!”  To claim that there’s a “deadly connection between white supremacy and guns” is to ignore the equally true fact that there’s just as deadly a connection between black self-defense and guns – but I don’t hear anyone complaining about the latter.  On the contrary, I (and, I think, most of my readers) think it’s praiseworthy.

However, the primary reason why the argument for gun control is nonsensical is that it ignores reality.  It blames the instrument, not the person wielding it.  Consider:

  • Do we charge a motor vehicle with drunk driving, or the person behind the wheel?
  • Do we charge a club with assault, or the person wielding it?
  • Do we charge a gun with murder, or the person who pulled the trigger?

In every single case, it’s the person using the instrument who was to blame, and who is held accountable under our legal system.  It doesn’t matter whether a murderer uses a gun, or a knife, or poison, or a bomb, or whatever.  The crime is murder – not how it was committed, or what instrument was used to perpetrate it.

To blame the gun for “hate crimes”, or murder, or whatever, is precisely the wrong approach.  The instrument has no moral sense, no conscience.  It’s a tool, and can be used for good or evil purposes – but the user decides that, not the tool.  A hammer can drive a nail, or beat someone’s head in;  but it remains just a hammer, blameless in either case.

Take the Bath school massacre of 1927, the worst mass murder in a school in US history.  44 people were killed, including 38 schoolchildren – but it didn’t take a gun to do it.  Dynamite did the job.  A murderer can and will accomplish his evil end by any means necessary;  explosives, arson, demolition, poison, or anything else.  Take away his gun, and he’ll find another way.

Gun control cannot and will not solve the problem of murder, and it cannot and will not solve the problem of white supremacist extremists.  It’s fundamentally misapplied logic to suggest that it will.  Doing so suggests that the proponent(s) of that approach have no idea of reality.

Gun control will do nothing to solve the problem of human evil.  Period.



  1. Peter, you are correct in stating "Gun control will do nothing to solve the problem of human evil. Period." It should be added that gun control will advance the problem of human evil. With the increase in arms carry in many states, here in Texas I believe we are even allowed swords now, has on the whole contributed to a statistical decrease in violent crime. In those areas such as Chicago, Detroit, New York City and Baltimore which have the stricter gun control laws there is a statistically higher incidence of violent crime.

    And as to nations that implement strict gun control such as licensing and registration (Shelia Jackson-Lee's H.R.147), it has often been the first step to confiscation as part of a move to a more authoritarian government. The Founder's of our Nation were fully aware of the issue of an unarmed population if the government became tyrannical and stated such.

  2. It's HR 127… And get the word out, because "news outlets" like Fox sure as heel aren't! Curious, that… given the bill was introduced 04JAN21…

  3. "Gun control will do nothing to solve the problem of human evil. Period."

    Yes it will.
    When it sparks shooting them in the face for trying.
    Evil sleeps most peacefully for humanity when it's safely buried under six feet of freshly dug earth.

  4. "Gun control will do nothing to solve the problem of human evil. Period."

    You're not thinking clearly. See, white people, specifically, white supremacists, which are all whites except for a small number of carefully vetted member of the elites and their servitors, are the source of all evil Disarmed white people are easier to eliminate; thus, banning gun control will directly lead to the elimination of evil. How can you peasants not understand this simple concept?

    – Your Friendly Overlords

  5. I have been watching a British show called Midsomer Murders. Although disarmed the Brits seem perfectly capable of killing each other up close and personal with cudgels, knives, and farm implements. The big difference I have noticed is the people murdered on this program are left at the mercy(none)of their assailants with little way to defend themselves. I shall keep my guns, thank you very much.

  6. Whenever they say "supremacy" think "people" because "supremacy" is just a liberal dog-whistle for how they express their hatred of us.

    White Supremacy is their code word for White People.

    When they say "White Supremacy" is a problem, they're really saying "White people" are a problem.

  7. It's not about solving the problem of human evil. It's about removing the ability to resist. Agents of the state are far less willing to assault large portions of the population when they risk injury or worse, even if they get a free pass for doing so. It's hard to enjoy being a despot when you're in a wheelchair emptying the colostomy bag you got from a catching a load of buckshot during a weapons raid for stuff that was legal an administration ago.

  8. Blaming guns for "hate crime", "gun violence", and all the rest, is an emotional bait for human shield hangers-on, while providing obscuring bafflegab for the string-pullers' campaign to disarm those who might resist having their strings pulled.

  9. This is the same sort of magical thinking that says a woman doesn’t have the capacity to consent to sex after she’s drank alcohol, but that same woman is fully responsible if she drives a car after drinking alcohol.

  10. The Confederate flag did nothing wrong. If you don't like it, don't fly it. But don't condemn those who do. We are not all bad but if you think so, too bad.

  11. P.S.- The American flag represents a country that has MURDERED over 60 million innocent unborn children since Roe v Wade. Is it also a symbol of hate, or is the Confederate flag the only one ? Put the American flag on the scales with the Confederate flag and see which one represents more killing, death, and hate.
    Think about it.

  12. I have seen it reported that the guy carrying the Confederate Battle Flag has been arrested. He was found to be a Democrat and Biden supporter. I can't remember the rest of the information but suspect he was there for the photo-op to discredit the Conservative side. The Democrats are all about staging this, trying to get an immediate uprising that they believe they can put down and use to enslave the people who oppose them.

  13. How many slave uprisings occurred in the United States? Only one. 1831, Nat Turner, 3 years before the Brits purchased all the negro slaves in the Empire from their owners. Why didn't the US just purchase slaves to free them? The US did…in 1862 the US bought all the negro slaves in Wash., DC for 300 dollars each…but to purchase 4 million negroes for 1000 dollars each (field hands vs house servants) would require 4 billion dollars…the GDP of the US in 1860 was 4 Billion…or 20Trillion in today's money…hmmm…cheaper to go to war…

    Was the war over slavery? Nope. The war was over the expansion of slavery into the territories…think I am wrong?. You wouldn't be the first…perhaps you can explain the Corwin Amendment…oh, that's right, you've never heard of the Corwin Amendment…not surprised.

    How many slave uprisings in the Confederate States…during 4 years of total war where millions of soldiers were running around creating havoc…and the US was encouraging slaves to rise up and kill their masters? ZERO. So the Confederate States had a better record for slave happiness than the United States.

    I can go on and on. Wars are fought for money and power. Not to free slaves…otherwise the army in blue would have been called the Freedom Force instead of the Union army.

    Interesting…the naacp says 5000 people were lynched between 1880 and 1950 in "the lynching period"…1500 whites and 3500 blacks…how many blacks commit violent crimes today as a percentage of the total population?..hmmm…

    Rosa parks was an naacp employee…mlk was with at woman not his wife the day he died…mlk cheated his way thru college…now BT Washington was a man…and a good one…read "Up from Slavery" and change the way you see the world.

    Thank you.

    1. What ARE you on about? The cost of the ACW came out to $5.2 billion, and the war was begun by people who thought that having a president who wouldn't let them expand their socioeconomic system into places that did not want it was so intolerable that they were willing to break up a nation over it.

      Also, there was a slave uprising in the Confederacy–it was simply a nonviolent one, as hundreds of thousands of slaves voted with their feet.

  14. 10s of thousands of American children died in accidents this past year, less than a couple of hundred deaths among the same age group were attributed to the kung flu. Cars and guns kill people.

  15. Who knew the price of the war beforehand? Lincoln called for 75000 troops…75000…I wish I could capitalize 75000…how about this…SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND…to put down the rebellion…so yes, buying the slaves back would have been more costly by a factor of say (total US forces in field from 1861 to 1865)/ 75000…or about conservatively, TWENTY.

    At least you realize the South's socioeconomic system was at war with the north's. Of course, the north continued to maim workers until…well…one day it will stop…

    Booker T Washington…"we loved our masters…we fought among each other to sit up with them and nurse them while their wounds healed…when they died we cried real tears"…of course, you've never read "Up From Slavery"…or perhaps more sinisterly…you have…

    Hundreds of thousands of slaves were forced into blue armies because if they didn't have a job and there was no welfare…well, then, they were subject to jail…

    1. First, blacks were never drafted; second, you're still not dealing with the fact that wherever the Union army went, blacks followed; third, you're not acknowledging the fact that the southern plantation system required an extensive network of laws, slave patrols, and the like to keep its labor and northern capitalism did not; fourth, the north was perfectly content to leave the plantation system alone, so long as southerners did not attempt to export it, while southerners were unwilling to reciprocate.

      It's amazing how similar slavery apologists and tankies sound when they make their arguments.

  16. In 1955, ­Emmett Till was tortured and shot in the head by White vigilantes.


    how many white on black violent crimes in the same year you ask?

    Well, whites are only registering about 50,000 violent crimes against blacks every year…

    Ok, I lied…the stats for 2020 aren't out yet…find a year they are documented by that racist org the FBI and tell me if you really think that 2020 was ANY different than the past…oh, say…10 decades.

  17. Who said blacks were drafted? Blacks couldn't even move to Illinois, the land of lincoln after 1857 by an amended State Constitution. Oregon was admitted to the union as a WHITES ONLY State.
    How are you going to draft a non-entity?

    Freed slaves followed the Food.

    Laws that said, "You cannot free a slave if he cannot support himself"

    The north was perfectly content to have the South as a colony.

    It is amazing how similar conquering historians paint their side of the story.

    How about this narrative…

    First of all, no one was ever enslaved in the New World. They were all enslaved in Africa. They came to the New World in freedom flotillas…no…they came over on slave ships.

    I suppose you think commerce went this way…a white man in Georgia built a ship and then he dug some gold out of the ground and then he sailed to Africa to capture some negroes…the gold was just for WAM…then he sailed back to the New World with his cargo…dumping most of it just for fun.

    Or perhaps it went this way…forests were protected by royal decree so one hundred years in the future, a live oak previously selected could be cut and used to make a rib on a sailing vessel that would be part of a warship that would protect sea lanes so licensed merchant ships could carry letters of credit to african kings so these african kings could purchase weapons enabling them to make war on their fellow africans (necessary animosity among tribes was not supplied as it already existed in excess).

    You want to talk about slavery apologists? THE QUEEN GOT A CUT OFF EVERY HEAD THAT SHIPPED.

    There was no need for african labor outside of the malarial zone of the current US. You can pretend yankees were some morally superior clan…the truth is there was excess labor in the north. Being sent to Georgia by the king was a death sentence. Sickle cell anemia is an adaptation to the malarial plague. It is the only reason blacks were brought to the New World.

    Oh, and the first negro slave owned in the English colonies was owned by another negro.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *