Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Malcolm X On The Second Amendment


Either watch this video from the beginning, or skip to 2:35 and watch to the end.

In either event, pay careful attention to the words.

Irony?

Or simply someone who correctly understands some basic tactics and at least one of the fundamental human rights?

Or both?

You make the call.

8 Comments:

Blogger GunRights4US said...

I listened from 2:35 onward...

It's the first time I ever heard him speak, and I see why he had such a following.

Discounting the Muslim thing, I agree with pretty much everything he said. One thing he was wrong about however: It's not just blacks who are being set upon by the criminal. It's ALL of us!

March 3, 2010 at 10:49 AM  
Blogger jon said...

black man, white man, rich man, poor man, same difference. it's entirely true. that is the free-market way. natural law, as god designed it.

it's unfortunate he didn't know amendment from article, didn't know the amendment by name, couldn't say a few words from it. but oh well. i can't do that for half the constitution either, but i'm not proud of it. i'm proud of human rights.

who wants to be kept from where they call home, and who wants to keep them? i don't see one thing here at all disagreeable about islam. not one.

"ours by right" is a typical marxist fallacy. rhetoric for this purpose, i imagine. and the government was, and is, responsible.

but having a suit against someone for saying the wrong thing? that better have been a gigantic oversimplification. you can't hold all of these positions simultaneously.

March 3, 2010 at 7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's be clear. Malcolm was a race separatist, and had strong socialist leanings. He was not a liberty minded individual as I would consider the current day 3%ers.

In other words, and please correct me if I am wrong, because I would hate to be on the wrong site. His was not a movement with "libertarian" roots. He was not a man who espoused liberty through individual endeavor. Rather he expected a "pay-back" or reparations from whites to blacks. This notion of reparations is on its face greatly flawed....go see what Walter Williams has to say on the matter!....and if you do not know who Walter Williams is do a google search of his name and the topic of reparations.

I might add a personal side note; my clan was not even on this side of the pond when the slave trade from Africa was in operation. A trade that was in place on the "dark continent" long before whites came to their shores. So why should I or my progeny pay anything for that sorry episode in our nations history? This is a notion that is based in identity politics as opposed to politics of ideals and ideas. This very same brand of identity politics is what was largely responsible for setting into the position of POTUS the current socialist we now so very much loathe. And I for one loathe him not for the color of his skin but for the content of his heart......he is lair, race-baiter and con-man.

Furthermore, my grandmother (rest her soul) was brought here from Ireland, in the early part of the 20th Century, as an indentured servant. That is a nice phrase for slavery! She raised 4 children during the depression, after her husband died, without any aid from the state. She worked 3 jobs to make ends meet. There was no welfare, food stamps or any other of the myriad of goodies now bestowed upon non-producers of specific groups. She would not have taken any if there were. Somehow she was able to instill in her children a work ethic of self reliance and "NOBODY OWES YOU A DAMN THING! So you best get on with the hard work ahead if you want to rise out of poverty."

I respect Malcolm X for his honesty in putting forward his views on behalf of raising up his race. I take offense when white people are called "racist" for doing the same for theirs.

I understand that none of us are free until we are all free. But freedom is not bought with socialism's promise of Utopia at the expense of the "wealthy".

I respect Malcolm X for his evolution from street criminal to an outspoken leader of his people.....even though I did not and still do not agree with his underlying premise of Whitey owed Blacks something.

In closing, I would argue that facing the current situation of racial tensions, that few whites seem to want to speak about for fear of offending or being labeled a "racist", if White people went about calling Blacks N****rs the way Malcolm called whites CRACKERS, I suspect we would have burning and looting on a massive scale as a way of demonstrating the socialist notion of NO JUSTICE NO PEACE.

So please dont associate the 3% movement with the likes of Malcolm X or any other socialists or race-baiters.

March 3, 2010 at 8:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only irony is the fact that inner city people of color haven't yet armed.

I live in a poor neighborhood in Minneapolis where the only people with guns are drug dealers and cops. One gang wears ecko the other wears blue uniforms.

Everybody else just watches T.V. and hopes these gangs don't mess with them.

March 4, 2010 at 2:01 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Anon:

Malcom X had some hair on him, and I, like you, refuse to pay reparations for something neither I nor my ancestors did.

But did you listen to the clip?

Don't you think it is curious that this controversial collectivist understood the purpose of the Second Amendment better than most (all?) of SCOTUS?

I will take good ideas and info from wherever and whomever I can, and leave the dross behind.

For my money, there is no better statement of Restoration commitment that Malcolm's "By any means necessary".

March 4, 2010 at 4:54 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Brock: Not holding the fellow to be a paragon of virtue, by any means.

But isn't it ironic that what he wanted for his people is much the same as what many of us -- simply to be left alone to live our lives free of government interference?

March 4, 2010 at 4:57 AM  
Blogger XYBØRG said...

...and had strong socialist leanings... - Anon

Not sure that's quite true. Take a look at this speech excerpt from his 1961/2 debate with Bayard Rustin:

http://www.thoughtequity.com/video/clip/5110008AA0605_014.do

Malcolm simply wanted for African-Americans the same things that white Americans had provided for themselves. Nothing more. And I have no doubt that his periodic calls for "reparations" were something that, over time, would have faded from his platform had he not been assassinated.

March 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Concerned:

Oh yes, I watched the video.

"By any means necessary" strikes me as a variation of the Marxist idea of "The end justifies the means".

There is a bit too much "dross" in his brand of liberation for my taste.

I choose not to associate myself with socialists of any dimension. Obama, like Malcolm is quite eloquent but his words ring hollow as only the lofty platitudes of a huckster who knows how to speak with a golden tongue but whose actions speak far louder than his words.

Be careful who you put up as an example to follow.

...or in the words of Bob Dylan:
"dont follow leaders and watch your parking meters." You may know the next line in the song and its underlying meaning.

KPN 3%

March 4, 2010 at 10:24 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home