Could African-Americans Have Secured Civil Rights With Guns?



Last week, Rush Limbaugh, asked a question of civil rights icon, Rep. John Lewis: “If a lot of African-Americans back in the ’60s had guns and the legal right to use them for self-defense, you think they would have needed Selma?  If John Lewis, who says he was beat upside the head, if John Lewis had had a gun, would he have been beat upside the head on the bridge?”

Rep. Lewis responded to this question via press release.

“Our goal in the Civil Rights Movement was not to injure or destroy but to build a sense of community, to reconcile people to the true oneness of all humanity,” said Rep. John Lewis.  “African Americans in the 60s could have chosen to arm themselves, but we made a conscious decision not to.  We were convinced that peace could not be achieved through violence.  Violence begets violence, and we believed the only way to achieve peaceful ends was through peaceful means.  We took a stand against an unjust system, and we decided to use this faith as our shield and the power of compassion as our defense.

“And that is why this nation celebrates the genius and the elegance of Martin Luther King Jr.’s work and philosophy.  Through the power of non-violent action, Dr. King accomplished something that no movement, no action of government, no war, no legislation, or strategy of politics had ever achieved in this nation’s history.  It was non-violence that not only brought an end to legalized segregation and racial discrimination, but Dr. King’s peaceful work changed the hearts of millions of Americans who stood up for justice and rejected the injury of violence forever.”

Lets follow Limbaugh’s thinking through. What would have happened if one of the civil rights marchers had shot an Alabama State Patrolman? It might have ended the entire Civil Rights movement then and there. The whole point was non-violence. Every time a protester was injured or jailed without resistance his side gained the moral high ground. Martin Luther King Jr. went to extraordinary lengths to ensure violence did not occur on the side of the protesters. The type of resistance Limbaugh suggested, lethal self-defense, was the antithesis of King’s entire strategy, not to mention his moral philosophy.

Perhaps this silly question by a shock-jock can enlighten us in the way the opposing sides think. Perhaps one side looks at guns via the lens of the American revolution, where the myth of armed civilians fighting tyranny is a pervasive one. The other side might be more influenced by non-violent political movements, like the Civil Rights struggles of the 60’s or Ghandi’s non-violent protests against the British.

What do you think? When is violence acceptable when attempting political reforms in the modern world?

This entry was posted in Gun Control, Media, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Could African-Americans Have Secured Civil Rights With Guns?

  1. FLPatriot says:

    I think what drives the discussion of “bearing arms” off course is that a lot only consider the use of weapons as an offensive tool and not a defensive one. Most people who support a strong second amendment do so as a defensive measure.

    I would have to say that I agree that if the civilian population is well armed that the government would thank twice before loading them into trains to be relocated. Many country’s governments have disarmed their population and that lead to more totalitarian and dictatorship regimes afterwards.

    Now do I think our government is at the point that it will become a dictatorship in my lifetime? No. Do I think this is in part to a strong second amendment and an armed civilian population? Definitely. For that fact I support keeping the second amendment as strong as possible.

  2. Violence is an acceptable means of political reform when all non-violent methods are closed off and when the opposition is using violence against you. That is if you can’t even have potential access to change by peaceful demonstrations, legal cases, legislative change, presidential executive orders, federal action, state actions or local action then you have effectively been shut off from the political system. That starts to make a case for violence but that alone doesn’t provide enough IMO. The opposition has to be doing something bad enough to justify violence, they need to be using violence or force or repression or something of that nature against you.

    Simply put I support the opposition in places like Syria and think they are justified in the use of violence. Whereas in the civil rights movement violence would have been both immoral and impractical.

    • I think that’s an excellent summary of when violence is appropriate. It seems like violence in any functioning democracy is never justified.

      • Of course that leads to the question of what is a functioning democracy. Many could argue that the US is not a functioning democracy. Though I don’t think we are the point of violence.
        Also it leads to questions about how closed off a system has to be before violence is justified. Do you have pursue EVERY possible avenue? Or if all your efforts are stymied for years can you assume the system is completely closed? Or is the a point whether either violence or non-violence are both justified?

  3. Christina says:

    It is hard to imagine violence being acceptable when attempting political reform. Pointing a gun at an official or political leader would be quite crazy and would only end in the worse and not a change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s