General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "We stop being something to be proud of when we love our guns more than we love our children" [View all]thucythucy
(8,038 posts)The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were both passed by Congress and signed into law before Rev. King was murdered, largely as a result of his nonviolent activism. Nothing, absolutely nothing, was moved forward by his murder, which prompted riots and more senseless killings in the short term, and led to the unravelling--without his leadership--of the non-violent direct action civil rights movement in the long term, since there was quite literally no one skillful enough, and with the necessary charisma, to take his place. The resulting violence also fueled the backlash against civil rights--a backlash from which we are only now emerging, largely thanks--aside from nonviolent activism--to demographic changes that are swamping the aging white male racist vote.
"He was killed by a racist, so that's that."
Sorry, but many of the most vocal defenders of gun rights in the name of fighting "tyranny" are also out and out racists. They see measures such as the Civil Rights Act as "tyranny"--defined by them. The Southern Poverty Law Center, among others, has done a tremendous job documenting the activity of these groups.
I notice you dodged all questions on who gets to define "tyranny." Teabaggers define "tyranny" as Obamacare, and voting rights for minorities, and marriage equality, among other things. Glenn Beck, also a 2nd amendment fundamentalist, defines tyranny as the election of President Obama.
The fact that you support these folks being armed to the teeth, all in the name of fighting "tyranny" is frightening at best, delusional at the very worst.