MARTIN LUTHER KING TRIED TO DEFEND HIMSELF WITH A GUN, BUT GOV’T TOOK AWAY HIS RIGHT TO DO SO

[jg121783 3,921]

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/martin-luther-king-tried-to-defend-himself-with-a-gun-but-govt-took-away-his-right-to-do-so_042018

[RLA 324]

If that's supposed to be a pro-gun argument then it's a pretty bad one.  MLK was shot from across the street and most likely didn't even get to see his assassin.  Having a gun wouldn't have made any difference.  

[jg121783 3,921]

3 minutes ago, RLA said:

If that's supposed to be a pro-gun argument then it's a pretty bad one.  MLK was shot from across the street and most likely didn't even get to see his assassin.  Having a gun wouldn't have made any difference.  

I agree it wouldn't have made a difference. However those on the left who hold MLK up as an example on their anti gun crusade are way off base as he was pro second amendment (and held many other conservative views that would shock the left).

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, RLA said:

If that's supposed to be a pro-gun argument then it's a pretty bad one.  MLK was shot from across the street and most likely didn't even get to see his assassin.  Having a gun wouldn't have made any difference.  

Exactly , 

If you look at the article it makes no mention of that obvious fact because it is really talking about his personal protection back in Alabama.  

It is a cynical attempt to trade on the anniversary of his death by assassination by the King of Fake News Click bait Matt Agorist ( not his real name and not a champion of Civil rights)

 

 

 

"

“Sometimes these views that we put out there can easily be written off by people who they expose by just labeling us as fake news,” Agorist says.

Agorist doesn’t claim The Free Thought Project is the only source of the truth, nor does he say the site should be the only source one goes to get their news. He says he wants to inspire conversation and a free flow of alternative views.

“Of course there’s opinion involved in the website," Agorist admits, “but the point isn’t to tell anybody what to think, the point is to help people think.”

Agorist proposes a challenge to those that believe The Free Thought Project is fake news.

“Call us out. If you think it’s fake, try to prove that. They’re not going to be able to, which is why we’re not fake news.”

So how can you tell what’s coming from a mainstream site and one that operates with an alternative agenda? Dr. Hans Klein recommends asking questions about the news you consume. “Treat it as an information source, but don’t simply ingest what you’re being told. Look at it skeptically. Think if it makes sense.”

Dr. Klein advises, “in some ways you might be better off treating all news as potentially fake, than treating all news you receive as just true.”

© 2018 WXIA

"

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

6 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I agree it wouldn't have made a difference. However those on the left who hold MLK up as an example on their anti gun crusade are way off base as he was pro second amendment (and held many other conservative views that would shock the left).

And has he grew older he embraced non-violence as his personal path

 

When Martin Luther King gave up his guns

King became an icon of pacifism, but he also believed in confrontational direct action

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/martin-luther-king-guns-pacifism

In 1959, at the invitation of the Gandhi National Memorial Fund, King made a pilgrimage to India to study the principles of satyagraha, and he was moved by the experience. Ultimately, he never embraced the complete pacifism. Later, in the Black Power years, King made a distinction between people using guns to defend themselves in the home and the question of "whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized protest." But, for himself, King claimed nonviolence as a "way of life," and he maintained his resolve under conditions that would make others falter.

In September 1962, when King was addressing a convention, a 200-pound white man, the 24-year-old American Nazi Party member Roy James, jumped onto the stage and struck the clergyman in the face. King responded with a level of courage that made a lifelong impression on many of those in the audience. One of them, the storied educator and activist Septima Clark, described how King dropped his hands "like a newborn baby" and spoke calmly to his attacker. King made no effort to protect himself even as he was knocked backwards by further blows, and later even insisted that he would not press charges.

[yuna628 9,712]

This is a factually inaccurate hypothesis. MLK did indeed apply for a gun, against some reservations he had, and was denied, as many persons of color were back then (the stigma of black men with firearms continues to this day however). He had many persons surrounding him though that were armed, due to the constant threats against him and others. At some point though, he was approached by individuals who noted that there  was a conflict between having so many armed individuals around him and the concept of nonviolent pacifism. Bayard Rustin came to visit him and have a robust discussion if the use of firearms for protection was inherently damaging to the concept of pacifism in what he was trying to achieve. Afterall, armed security and a few famous incidents that had happened, were being used as propaganda tools against him. MLK was a supporter of self defense in the home (afterall this was yet another right being denied to black men and thus making them less equal to others), however he came to understand Rustin's viewpoint on the subject and took that same position. He needed and wanted black men of the south to wholeheartedly embrace the concept of nonviolent protest.

 

Quote

Meanwhile I reconsidered. How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? Coretta and I talked the matter over for several days and finally agreed that arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned. We tried to satisfy our friends by having floodlights mounted around the house, and hiring unarmed watchmen around the clock. I also promised that I would not travel around the city alone. 

 

I was much more afraid in Montgomery when I had a gun in my house. When I decided that I couldn't keep a gun, I came face-to-face with the question of death and I dealt with it. From that point on, I no longer needed a gun nor have I been afraid. Had we become distracted by the question of my safety we would have lost the moral offensive and sunk to the level of our oppressors.

There is no doubt that MLK was pro second amendment, but clearly in terms as it being a right afforded to some Americans and not all Americans. Black men with guns, were dangerous. White men with guns were not. But it was very clear that MLK felt he no longer needed the use of weapons as a crutch of protection. He was not going to make change with a physical weapon (as his oppressors were attempting) he would, as many other before him, use his words as the best nonviolent weapon there was.

[Jacque67 7,328]

7 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

And has he grew older he embraced non-violence as his personal path

 

When Martin Luther King gave up his guns

King became an icon of pacifism, but he also believed in confrontational direct action

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/martin-luther-king-guns-pacifism

In 1959, at the invitation of the Gandhi National Memorial Fund, King made a pilgrimage to India to study the principles of satyagraha, and he was moved by the experience. Ultimately, he never embraced the complete pacifism. Later, in the Black Power years, King made a distinction between people using guns to defend themselves in the home and the question of "whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized protest." But, for himself, King claimed nonviolence as a "way of life," and he maintained his resolve under conditions that would make others falter.

In September 1962, when King was addressing a convention, a 200-pound white man, the 24-year-old American Nazi Party member Roy James, jumped onto the stage and struck the clergyman in the face. King responded with a level of courage that made a lifelong impression on many of those in the audience. One of them, the storied educator and activist Septima Clark, described how King dropped his hands "like a newborn baby" and spoke calmly to his attacker. King made no effort to protect himself even as he was knocked backwards by further blows, and later even insisted that he would not press charges.

Oh boy.

[jg121783 3,921]

6 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

And has he grew older he embraced non-violence as his personal path

 

When Martin Luther King gave up his guns

King became an icon of pacifism, but he also believed in confrontational direct action

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/martin-luther-king-guns-pacifism

In 1959, at the invitation of the Gandhi National Memorial Fund, King made a pilgrimage to India to study the principles of satyagraha, and he was moved by the experience. Ultimately, he never embraced the complete pacifism. Later, in the Black Power years, King made a distinction between people using guns to defend themselves in the home and the question of "whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized protest." But, for himself, King claimed nonviolence as a "way of life," and he maintained his resolve under conditions that would make others falter.

In September 1962, when King was addressing a convention, a 200-pound white man, the 24-year-old American Nazi Party member Roy James, jumped onto the stage and struck the clergyman in the face. King responded with a level of courage that made a lifelong impression on many of those in the audience. One of them, the storied educator and activist Septima Clark, described how King dropped his hands "like a newborn baby" and spoke calmly to his attacker. King made no effort to protect himself even as he was knocked backwards by further blows, and later even insisted that he would not press charges.

I'm missing the part here where he gave up his guns and publicly advocated against the second amendment. It is a fact however that he did apply for a concealed carry permit.

[yuna628 9,712]

6 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I'm missing the part here where he gave up his guns and publicly advocated against the second amendment. It is a fact however that he did apply for a concealed carry permit.

If you're missing the part, then you need to read the King Papers, of his autobiography, in particular, chapter 8. https://swap.stanford.edu/20141218230026/http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/autobiography/chp_8.htm

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

I'm missing the part here where he gave up his guns and publicly advocated against the second amendment. It is a fact however that he did apply for a concealed carry permit.

Who claims he advocated against the second amendment?