From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Disarming of Black America
by Richard Poe
Newsmax.com | December 13, 1999
URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/poe/poe08-22-00p.htm
WHILE TAKING in the sights of Moscow, during my student days in 1978, I
ran into an elderly couple from New Jersey.
"What a wonderful country!" the woman exclaimed. "There's no crime.
You can walk the streets after dark without being afraid."
No crime? The irony of her statement was not lost on me. I knew that
the Soviets had murdered tens of millions of people (20 million,
according to Stephane Courtois's Black Book of Communism; 60 million,
according to Alexander Solzhenitsyn).
Surely this qualified as a "crime" of some sort. But I held my tongue
politely.
Arguing would have seemed insensitive. I knew that, back home in New
Jersey, elderly people such as they were prime targets for muggers and
burglars. Who was I to begrudge them whatever small pleasure they might
glean from strolling Red Square unmolested, under the watchful gaze of
gray-uniformed militsionyeri?
Yet I wondered how deep their admiration for Brezhnev's police state
really went. Did those dreamy looks on their faces mean they actually
preferred Soviet dictatorship to our own system? I tried not to think
about it.
That chance encounter in Moscow returned to haunt me recently, when I
stumbled across two disheartening statistics. The first were nationwide
poll results showing that 83 percent of African Americans would support
a ban on all gun sales, except by special police permit. The second
came from a Department of Housing and Urban Development survey of public
housing residents, indicating that 68 percent believe that allowing
police to conduct random searches for guns, without warrants, would
improve safety in their projects.
Like those elderly tourists in Moscow, black Americans are clearly fed
up with crime. And who can blame them? Fully 50 percent of all murder
victims in the U.S. are black. But, like those short-sighted tourists,
many African Americans appear dangerously willing to tolerate
police-state tactics, in exchange for safer streets.
An authoritarian crackdown might well succeed in curbing crime. Did not
Mussolini get the trains running on time? But African Americans would
be naive to expect our government to continue working in their best
interests, once it has stripped them of their liberties.
With the NAACP suing gun manufacturers and Jesse Jackson stumping for
stricter gun laws, black leaders seem to have fixed their crosshairs
squarely on the Second Amendment. But not all African Americans are
cheering them on.
Niger Innis certainly isn't. Growing up in Harlem, Innis lost two
brothers to gun-wielding killers. But these tragedies only deepened his
conviction that an armed and vigilant citizenry is the best curb on
lawlessness.
"Not every cop can be everywhere at all times," says Innis, who is
national spokesman for the New York-based Congress of Racial Equality
(CORE). "Decent men and women with families need to be able to defend
themselves and their property. It's that simple."
More to the point, Innis sees gun control as a slippery slope toward
outright gun confiscation. Loss of Second Amendment rights, he says,
would leave both whites and blacks vulnerable to tyranny.
"Traditionally, when governments want to disenfranchise people, the
first thing they do is disarm them," says Innis. "That was the case in
Nazi Germany, when the Jews were disarmed. That was the case in the
American South, after slavery."
Innis is correct, on both counts. On November 7, 1938, a 17-year-old
Jewish refugee named Herschel Grynszpan shot and killed a German
diplomat in Paris. The highly publicized shooting gave the Nazis the
excuse they needed for a major crackdown.
German newspapers whipped up hysteria over the threat of Jewish
terrorism. Then, on November 11, the Nazi government ordered Jews to
surrender all firearms, clubs and knives. Without weapons, the Jews
were easily herded into concentration camps.
Southern slaveowners also understood the need to keep their victims
helpless and unarmed, as gun-law expert Stephen P.
Halbrook documents in his book That Every Man Be Armed.
"No slave shall go armed with a gun, or shall keep such weapons,"
declared an 1854 law of North Carolina. Violators received 39 lashes.
After the Civil War, white southerners tried to maintain their monopoly
over firearms. Many states barred African Americans from owning guns.
Local police, state militias and Ku Klux Klansmen rode from house to
house, demanding that blacks turn in their weapons. Once disarmed, they
were helpless against lynch mobs.
"Before these midnight marauders made attacks upon peaceful citizens,"
Representative Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts informed the U.S.
Congress in 1871, "there were many instances in the South where the
sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their
victims."
On the other hand, freedmen who kept their guns were able to fight
back. Representative Butler described an incident in which armed blacks
successfully resisted a Klan attack.
"The colored men then fired on the Ku Klux, and killed their leader or
captain right there on the steps of the colored men's house.... There
he remained until morning when he was identified, and proved to be `Pat
Inman,' a constable and deputy sheriff...."
According to Halbrook, the Fourteenth Amendment temporarily stymied the
gun-control efforts of southern bigots. It forbade the states from
passing any law that would deprive citizens of their constitutional
rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
But in the 1960s, fear of armed blacks soon got the ball rolling again.
Race riots spread from city to city. The Black Panther Party urged
African Americans to arm themselves for revolution.
The response from white America was swift and predictable. As liberal
anti-gun crusader Robert Sherrill put it, in his 1973 book The Saturday
Night Special, "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control
guns but to control blacks...."
In their fear of black unrest, white Americans had given birth to a
Frankenstein's monster. The machinery of gun control set up in the
1960s is now being turned against its creators - a case of "the chickens
coming home to roost," as Malcolm X would have put it.
A glimpse of what may lie in store for white America can be seen in some
of the extreme measures that have already been used against blacks.
In the early '90s, some cities experimented with "sweeps" of public
housing projects, in which police, without warrants, would
systematically enter and search every apartment for weapons. Bill
Clinton praised the program, urging its adoption nationwide.
Project residents were divided in their opinions about the sweeps.
Referring to Chicago Housing Authority chairman Vince Lane, who
spearheaded the program in that city, one tenant told the Chicago
Sun-Times: "He's using the Southern, Jim Crow, Ku Klux Klan method on
his own people."
Other residents declared themselves more than willing to give up their
rights, if it would bring peace. "Sometimes you got to sacrifice your
rights to save your life," Daisy Bradford told the New York Times. "As
far as I'm concerned, the Constitution needs to be changed. The
innocent people are being violated by the criminals."
A federal judge struck down warrantless sweeps in 1995, calling them a
clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. But in view of their
popularity among public housing residents, it seems only a matter of
time before some pretext is found to bring them back.
Niger Innis believes that blacks are being hoodwinked by their leaders.
"The Jesse Jacksons and the NAACPs are mouthpieces of the liberal
establishment and the gun prohibitionist crowd, " he charges. "They are
not serving their constituents within the black community. They're
serving their masters within the liberal Democratic party."
According to Innis, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental
freedom. Yet, of all the major civil rights organizations, CORE is the
only one defending it.
"My father [CORE national chairman Roy Innis] is a lifetime member and a
board member of the National Rifle Association,"
says Innis. "We and the NRA are kindred souls, when it comes to the
Second Amendment."
In 1990, CORE defended Kenneth Mendoza, a 19-year-old Hispanic resident
of East Harlem hailed in the press as a "Good Samaritan". Mendoza had
rescued his pregnant neighbor from a knife-wielding intruder.
The woman called Mendoza her hero. But, after gunning down the
assailant with a .38 pistol, Mendoza was charged with murder and
possession of an unlicensed weapon. CORE general counsel Mel A. Sachs
managed to get both charges dismissed.
"No other civil rights organizations have spoken in defense of Good
Samaritans," Sachs laments. Yet, about 80 percent of Good Samaritans
are minorities, he observes. CORE routinely defends such cases in
court.
Shortly after Mendoza's arrest, the New York Times interviewed the "Good
Samaritan's" neighbors, finding strong support for Mendoza's action.
"There is a code of law we live by in this neighborhood: people have to
survive," said Ralph Vello, 25. "He did the right thing."
The code to which Vello referred is not unique to East Harlem. It is a
timeless principle, enshrined in common law: the right to self-defense.
Since ancient times, society has recognized the right of free men to arm
themselves, in defense of their lives, homes and families.
Slaves, however, were often denied this right. Under the laws of
William the Conqueror, the difference between free men and slaves was
actually defined by ownership - or non-ownership - of weapons.
"If any person is willing to enfranchise his slave," said the Norman law
code, "let him...deliver him free arms, to wit, a lance and a sword;
thereupon he is a free man."
Innis believes that black Americans have an intuitive grasp of the link
between guns and freedom, an understanding that will eventually force
them to part ways with the Jesse Jackson crowd.
Referring to public housing tenants such as Daisy Bradford, who have
supported warrantless sweeps, Innis remarks, "People in a housing
project that is under siege might not care about an esoteric right, like
the right not to be searched without a warrant.
"But those individuals damn well know what the right of self-defense
is. And they know the power of having a gun on the premises.
"I'll bet if we were to go into that project right now, there would be
many law-abiding, decent citizens that have guns in their households,
and they are branded as criminals because of unfair gun laws. Those
people in that project have a desire to protect themselves more than
anybody else. And they'll do it by any means necessary."
Speaking in defense of gun sweeps, back in 1994, Bill Clinton dismissed
the charge that warrantless searches violated people's freedom. "The
most important freedom we have in this country is the freedom from
fear," he declared before the tenants of a violence-plagued Chicago
housing project.
Clinton's words got a respectful hearing from those shell-shocked
tenants. But our founding fathers would have seen right through them.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," chided Benjamin
Franklin.
In the end, history will judge whether our generation cared more about
saving its freedom or saving its skin. Should we manage to retain any
semblance of our constitutional liberties, it will be thanks to the
courage of men such as Roy and Niger Innis, who dared to speak out when
all around them were silent.
Richard Poe is editor of FrontPageMagazine.com. For more information
about Poe and his work, visit RichardPoe.com.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
