Wednesday, February 06, 2013

When Did The Left Fall Out of Love With Guns?


From Captain's Journal:

How do you know the left is firmly in charge of the political and cultural establishment in America?
Because now they want to ban guns.
As a former leftist revolutionary during my misguided youth, I recall with crystal clarity when the radical left of the 1960s brazenly bore arms in public, boasted about firearms training, stockpiled arms and ammo and even engaged in armed violence against police.
The Black Panther Party, originally, by the way, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, is a case in point. The organization, led by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, were often referred to in the ’60s as “the vanguard of the revolution.”
They were known for ambushing police. Newton himself, after being freed from prison for the killing of Oakland police officer John Frey, boasted of murdering him. James Forman, Black Panther Party “minister of foreign affairs,” called for blowing up police stations, killing Southern governors and mayors and murdering 500 cops. They took full advantage of the Second Amendment and California laws that permitted the carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns in public, as long as they were not concealed or pointed at anyone. In May 1967, the Panthers literally invaded, fully armed, the State Assembly of the California Legislature. Later they organized an armed march on the state Capitol when lawmakers introduced legislation banning the carrying of loaded weapons in public.
All of this made them the heroes of the left. So-called “civil rights attorneys” like Charles Garry and William Kunstler and the American Civil Liberties Union defended them for their brazen calls for armed struggle, armed attacks and armed intimidation tactics.
But that was then, and this is now.
[ ... ]
The only difference between now and then is who is running things.
GO READ THE WHOLE THING. 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

When did the left fall out of love with guns? More importantly, why?

Answer: Because with the left, it is far more about the over-all agenda than any particular thing that can be brought into the service of advancing that agenda. The instant that something becomes more harmful to the agenda than it is useful in advancing it, it must be neutralized or eliminated. And the individual right to keep and bear arms is a primary threat to the agenda in its final phase of imposition.