King: "I Can't Follow the Old Eye-For-an-Eye Philosophy"
Forty years ago today, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was felled by an assassin's bullet. He was 39.
Robert F. Kennedy, campaigning for president in 1968, was in Indianapolis on the evening of April 4, 1968. The first to tell the crowd the terrible news, he reminded them of what Dr. King lived and ultimately died for:
Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice for his fellow human beings, and he died because of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it is perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. ... [W]e can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, with compassion and love.
Out of nearly 100 major cities in America that rioted at the news of Dr. King's assassination, Indianapolis was not among them. Just two months after this speech, Robert Kennedy too would be assassinated by gunshot.
From these horrible losses would come the Gun Control Act of 1968, one of the few pieces of national gun control legislation on the books today.
Dr. King said many profound things in his public and ministerial career. His statement at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, on May 3, 1963 -- one month before I had the opportunity to hear him and meet him in my hometown of Fort Wayne, Indiana -- seems particularly meaningful today:
The reason I can't follow the old eye-for-an-eye philosophy is that it ends up leaving everybody blind. Somebody must have sense and somebody must have religion. I remember some years ago, my brother and I were driving from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tennessee. And for some reason the drivers that night were very discourteous or they were forgetting to dim their lights .... And finally A.D. [King's brother] looked over at me and he said, "I'm tired of this now, and the next car that comes by here and refuses to dim the lights, I'm going to refuse to dim mine." I said, "Wait a minute, don't do that. Somebody has to have some sense on this highway and if somebody doesn't have sense enough to dim the lights, we'll all end up destroyed on this highway."
And I'm saying the same thing for us here in Birmingham. We are moving up a mighty highway toward the city of Freedom. There will be meandering points. There will be curves and difficult moments, and we will be tempted to retaliate with the same kind of force that the opposition will use. But I'm going to say to you, "Wait a minute, Birmingham. Somebody's got to have some sense in Birmingham."
If Dr. King is looking down on us today, I can imagine him seeing 12,352 gun murders a year in the United States -- nearly 34 every day -- and telling us that "the old eye-for-an-eye philosophy leaves everyone blind."
Somebody's got to "have some sense" in America.
Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Jason,
I somewhat agree with you. DC's virtual ban on shotguns and rifles ("virtual" ban, since an inoperable weapon is as good as banned) is a joke. What bothers me is that you feel DC's ban on handguns is (come June, WAS) an acceptable compromise. Especially in light of its ineffectiveness (ever take a look at DC's per capita crime statistics?) What is your justification for supporting a ban on the most commonly used, and most appropriately designed tool for self defense? Because it is the same tool favored by criminals?
Gun control is what we do because we don't have the money or the resources to address the real roots of crime. But gun control garners votes and makes soccer moms feel good at night "knowing" that because of a ban or because of a one gun a month law, that the criminals are being "put in their place." Most people aren't educated enough about gun control and crime to make the correlation that gun control has not, and does not work. Most sheeple, I mean people, believe everything that the media tells them.
Pro-gun supporters are so adamant in their convictions because history and statistics support the ineffectiveness of any law which does not directly target criminals, not because we're "nuts."
And oh yeah, we also have that pesky little document called the Constitution if all the fallacies of gun control just don't register.
Getting a little thin down there JEM, so...
"Just seemed a little overly confrontational for an int ital [sic] comments on what I was laying out. It also seemed a little overly nit-picky on how I decided to explain my reasoning.
"I prefer to wage a battle of wearing them down with common sense. I think that will ultimately win out." Naive.
"If the current laws don't satisfy the owners of 200 million guns then what can we do to puts rules in place that accomplish our ends?" Ban 'em all - which is where we're heading anyway. Why screw around and prolong it. Either register or ban. That's it. Simple.
"Not sure what the answer is, because plainly any regulation amounts to over regulation. Doesn't stop it from being an important debate though, even with the frequent stalemates
Well, as long as relying on common sense is naive in your world, then conversation most likely won't matter. I live in DC and the law, as written, is idiotic. They took what could have been a reasonable and acceptable ban on hand-guns and then added that shot guns must be unloaded and disassembled in the closet, thus creating a law that is ridiculous and counter-productive. Banning anything is comparable to the main issue of not treating people like adults, so, yes, in this instance, comparing drugs and guns are applicable, grasshopper.
*Uh hum* But wasn't it you that seemed open to the idea of opposing ideas, no matter how absurd/ext
Apologies to you, regarding your (what sounds to be a) reasonable mind and middling logic, but what you are conducting sounds an awful lot like the McCain/Barama ticket - take no stance, discard no position, but still be vague enough to appease any-, every-one who might be listening!? What gives? Make a decision, wait for spine and stick with it! Quit pansying around! C'mon now... this is no time for the weak!
"Prove to me that you can own a gun and blow away an intruder in the middle of the night without punching holes into the row-house next door because your bullets are too powerful for the job at hand." -Jason
Ok, Jason. You are asking for serious debate, then I have a question for you...
If you are concerned about "bullets punching holes though walls" of your neighbor's house, then why do you suppose some states regulate hollow-point ammunition, when, in addition to stopping power, also PREVENT that very situation from happening?
http://www
This is the type of law which is deemed as "common sense" to the gun control platform.
If a state is banning ammunition that solves the problem I spoke of then that state is stupid. I am not a gun control advocate, but I don't consider banning ammunition a common sense means of ensuring a safe society.
Besides this mythical training, you seem to offer very little other "reasonable" alternatives? (Perhaps because they are lacking?) Listen, JEM, I applaud your efforts to have a reasonable discussion with these miscreants, as many others have done before you, but I feel obligated to bring you in on a well-known tidbit of fact...it doesn't matter. Period. They will hear what they want to hear. Read what they want to read. And shoot what they want to shoot. You'd do as well to go bang your head into the wall....th
If ever there was a "head in the sand" it is the collective lot here.
Jason, pay no mind to solitude. He is the anthesis of rational debate, or anything else which is rational. He likes to drop attacks and run and hide for a few days. This is the same person who rationalizes personal defense with kitchen utensils.
Anyway, I am just curious as to what you would consider a "reasonable" gun control law? This is not baiting you, I am just genuinely interested.
So this is why Paul has been so busy on the blogs lately, he's had a lot of time on his hands, you know, because he and the BC won't be on the V-Tech campus protesting
http://www
It's good to know that at least the university administration recognizes the need for class when you are memorializing your fallen comrades rather than using their blood as a soapbox...
Another hat-tip to Uncle...
Part of "The Children(tm)" demographi
http://www
Hat tip to Uncle.
"The whole idea behind the second amendment was to ensure a young nation could protect itself from other countries - not create an environment where an eye-for-an-eye, outside the bounds of the law, was the norm. They wanted a society of civilized men." -Jason
You forgot that the 2A also guarantees that the Government could not infringe upon the already inherent right to self-protection, which is evidenced by fact that the founding fathers choose the phrase "...the right of the people..." instead of the "right of the militia" or the right of the states."
One important aspect that most pro-gun control advocates fail to recognize is that the 2A is not what is "creating" this eye-for-an-eye environment. This mentality is simply the inevitable evolution of society which glamorizes violence and degradation of women, is reliant on socio-economic inequalities (unfortunately, society's economics simply could not function in an environment where everyone is a millionaire, ie, society NEEDS the poor), has a failing judicial system which exacerbates criminal recidivism, has a horribly underfunded educational system, rewards the proliferation of bastardized children (more children = more welfare) and a plethora of other societal and environmental factors. Blaming "The Gun Show Loophole (tm)", "Assault Rifles(tm)", the 2A itself, etc... only minimizes societies problems and hides the fact that to remedy them is practically an insurmountable task hindered by misappropriation of finite resources and society's failure to hold individuals accountable for their actions.
"The whole idea behind the second amendment was to ensure a young nation could protect itself from other countries - not create an environment where an eye-for-an-eye, outside the bounds of the law, was the norm. They wanted a society of civilized men." -Jason
That is only part of the reasons, and for many of the founding fathers, it certainly not the most important of reasons. At the time the Bill of Rights was being drafted, most of the founders wanted their individual states to maintain the organized and unorganized militia structures that won them their freedom from Britain, yet they also realized the need for a standing army to protect against threats that individual states were not equipped to deal with. But they were worried that a centralized governmental power could grow so bid that it become oppressive over their individual States.
The founders saw the right to keep and bear arm as a unalienable right given to them by God and didn't feel it even had to be enumerated, but luck for us, they also feared that such a power government could enact federal law to disarm the masses and then disband the militias as their first steps on the road to suppressing individual freedom To guard against this, they demanded a prevision be enumerated into the bill of rights (the 2nd Amendment) to ensure that this was addressed.
I have no problem with sensible gun control. What does that mean to me?
We do our level best to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable individuals. Sensible regulations meaning if you are going to own a gun and have a valid license to carry that gun, either concealed or not, you must demonstrate competence with that gun. I had to qualify every six months in the military. I don't think yearly competency tests are outside the bounds of sensible regulation.
Of course criminals won't abide by the rules, but I don't think that is a reason not to have them.
As can be seen by the comments to my plea for common sense, the wild west indeed alive and well. You have more chance of being hit by a bus than of being a victim of violent crime. Somehow the unrestricted "right" to own and bear arms independent of a "well-regulated militia" seems to be counter to the sensible common sense men who wrote the constitution.
The whole idea behind the second amendment was to ensure a young nation could protect itself from other countries - not create an environment where an eye-for-an-eye, outside the bounds of the law, was the norm. They wanted a society of civilized men.
I don't it is unreasonable that we demand lawful ownership of a gun ensures to me and my family that you aren't more dangerous armed than the "criminals
JasonEverettMiller: "Sensible regulations meaning if you are going to own a gun and have a valid license to carry that gun, either concealed or not, you must demonstrate competence with that gun."
There WAS such a system in Geat Britain. When hi-profile shootings continued (as they inevitable will), gun control advocates there successfully lobbied to ban and confiscate all handguns and all semiauto and pump action hunting rifles and shotguns. Tell us why gun control advocates won't try to repeat that pattern here.
I can't guarantee anything, but as long as the zealots on both sides of this issue dictate the solutions we do put in place, then it will be a big pendulum swing between anarchy and big brother. I advocate for a solution at the bottom of that arc of irrational behavior.
JasonEverettMiller: I had to qualify every six months in the military. I don't think yearly competency tests are outside the bounds of sensible regulation. I don't it is unreasonable that we demand lawful ownership of a gun ensures to me and my family that you aren't more dangerous armed than the "criminals
Of all unlawfull shootings, exactly how many are caused by the LACK of the qualification test that you propose? Please present verifiable data to back up your claim.
Fishy, you are making this "claim." You've read more into what was posted by Jason than what he actually did say. Put your spectacles back on next time.
Plenty of twitchy goobers blow away their neighbor because they aren't trained. I don't even know what you mean by unlawful shootings, but I think that basic competency for owning and operating a fire-arm legally is at least as important as whether you have had a felony or are mental stable.
JasonEverettMiller: Somehow the unrestricted "right" to own and bear arms independent of a "well-regulated militia" seems to be counter to the sensible common sense men who wrote the constitution.
While there is a variety of opinions, I do not see anyone here arguing for "unrestric
However, the right to own and bear arms independent of a "well-regulated militia" seems to be completely in keeping with the sensible common sense men who wrote the Constitution. At the time that they wrote it, the people HAD exactly that right, and there was NO signifigant downside associated with that right. Why would they oppose it?
Ther WAS good reason to guarantee that right to the people, because at that time it was already well recognized that a tyranny would wish to disarm the people.
I was with you all the way until your third paragraph. Here's why.
The Second Amendment, as written, has only cursory mention of a militia. One must not be required to be a part of the militia to have a right to keep and bear arms. However, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is what allows them to be an effective militia, among other things. It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not protect the right of a militia, which, as it is not a person, has no rights. Only individual peoples have rights.
The Framers were very clear that they had a lot more than the militia in mind when they wrote the right to bear arms as an inalienable right. They realized that when nobody has weapons, they fall prey to tyranny (be it via government, mob rule, or the strong over the weak). They stated as much. They realized that if weapons are outlawed, only the outlaws will have them. They stated as much (Jefferson wrote eloquently about those who abide by such laws are already the ones neither inclined nor willing to break such laws).
Nobody is claiming any kind of "eye-for-an-eye" environment. Eye-for-an-eye is retributive punishment. Self-defense is more proactive than that, where one actively protects their self instead of allowing their self to become a victim and seeking punishment (retributive justice) afterwards.
"The whole idea behind the second amendment was to ensure a young nation could protect itself from other countries - not create an environment where an eye-for-an-eye, outside the bounds of the law, was the norm. They wanted a society of civilized men."
The whole idea behind the Second Amendment was to provide a guarantee that the previoulsly existing "right of the People" to keep and bear arms would not be infringed upon. We have posted countless quotes fro the Founding Fathers stating their belief in the individual right to own guns for all reasons, including protection.
Do not presume to tell us what they meant.
"As can be seen by the comments to my plea for common sense, the wild west indeed alive and well. You have more chance of being hit by a bus than of being a victim of violent crime. "
Really? And when was the last time you had to walk down a dark, dangerous city street, all alone?
Just last week, four punks beat a guy to death in a Philadelphia train station I pass through frequently. I had to go through there the day after it happened, as a matter of fact. I've never come that close to being hit by a bus.
And if you new anything about your own history, you would know that gun fights were not a very frequent occurance in the "wild west". You should refrain from using such BC slogan-speak.
I live in Northeast DC. I think I know a thing or two about dark city streets. Yes, even in DC, you have more chance of being killed by a bus than a criminal. Look it up. You can't take anecdotal evidence as proof of anything.
We aren't debating whether or not there is crime.
The Founding Fathers, above all, were men of common sense and reason. When the second amendment was penned, the ball and musket was the weapon of choice. You wanted the unregulated right to keep and bear muskets? Otherwise, we need to have a sensible discussion about fir-arms will be managed in a civil society.
In this day and age, with the types of weapons on the market and the enormous possibility of collateral damage, sensible regulations is a must for lawful society. Period. That isn't even something the Founders would debate. The second amendment would read much differently if the Founders wrote it today, given the current circumstances.
12,352 murders per year.
I feel a lot safer knowing I'm at least as well armed as those committing these crimes.
Some gun-control advocates don't get why there is some discussion of Dr. King's views of both non-violence and self-defense, and they don't seem to understand what pacifism is and its relationship to keeping and bearing arms.
There is a pointing out that Dr. King still supported the morality and ethical justification for self-defense along with his non-violent philosophy. This must be illustrated here on Helmke's blog, because Helmke frequently attempts to use material from outside of gun-control to make it seem to fit the gun-control agenda. As we see with this post, It is not beyond Helmke to attempt the same with Dr. King's words. Those of us who feel it important to keep gun-control ideas honest are pointing out distinctions about Dr. King which don't fit the gun-control agenda.
As for "pacifism", that is not a word which means "appeasement" or implies that adherents must be unarmed. Pacifism means "peace-seeking". One can sincerely seek peace through non-violent means, yet retain arms in case self-defense is required or to defend one's group or society in case those with whom one seeks peace aren't in the same mood for peace or non-violence.
Ladyshooter you go girl!
It is quite obvious that certain individuals cannot see the forest for the trees. 12,352 gun murders a year, what does this really say? That guns are bad? People are bad? Gun Control is good? No in fact this shows the failure of the Paul and the Brady bunch, the other little bill of rights hating groups, as well as a government gone to the dogs.
If you take a long look at the rise of the entitlement driven society, you will see as government, feel good give away programs have increased so has the rate of crime and violence. Not to mention support the Liberal agenda. The courts are a joke, unless you get caught for speeding you will get a free pass should you rob someone. Police are more interested in sitting with a radar gun than really fighting crime. Not the offices fault, but rather the governments, its revenue raising. The court would have to work for a robbery or other serious conviction, Traffic tickets are easy money. Protecting the public just cost too much.
Paul and the rest of the Anti Freedom were serious about lowering gun crime they would push the government, to stop giving hand outs, instead give only hands ups. Make people earn a livings, help people build self pride. Dr. Kings message was a message of hope, opportunities for all, not hand outs for all, certainly not a police state for all. Paul you should be ashamed.
History has shown the right to self-defense is an essential right for minorities.
During the early part of the 20th century, the Ku Klux Klan tried to burn out a community of African Americans. There was one impediment to their pogrom, the African Americans in that community were armed. They fought off the Klan, and saved their homes.
During World War II, the Wermacht laid siege on the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw, Poland. The reason was, about 6 Jews had put up resistance against the Gestapo roundup to the send the Jews to extermination camps like Auschwitz. Those 6 Jews were able to tie-up the German Army for some time. The 6 Jews undoubtedly had significant role in defeating the NAZI's. It did not matter their resistance was crushed, they still were able to delay and hinder the German war machine. Also, if more Jews had been armed, they would have done more to sabotage the NAZI war effort.
In this country, a number of gay, lesbians and transgendered have started an organization called the Pink Pistols. Their goal is to discourage the hate crimes by groups like the Skinheads and neo-nazi's.
I support the efforts of all minorities to defend themselves. We can hope for equality, as Dr. King said, "people should be judged by the content of their soul." No exact words, but that was his message.
There is a conceit - or is it deceit? - in so many of the comments to this blog, that King somehow was not who he really was - i.e., a nonviolent pacifist - because armed racists made him fear for his life.
The implication that King somehow was a hypocrite for wanting to arm himself and his family against a racist mob who had effortless access to firearms - that he was a hypocrite for being in fear of his life, and so therefore would somehow favor arming *more* Americans and not fewer - is just another conservative corruption of what the man actually stood for: nonviolent conflict resolution.
The self-delusion required to believe that a man - whose only public mission was to create social justice through nonviolent means - into an apologist for lethal violence at the hands of all manner of American men, women and children because of easy access to guns, is astounding.
King would be against more guns in more places in more hands. Why? Because he was a pacifist.
Trying to change the subject to "self-defense," while clever (or pathological), will never change that.
I think you need to read something other than the propaganda, dished out by the liberal left.
I noticed that same problem, Super8. Maybe the progunners are confusing Dr. King with Malcolm X (assuming they know who the latter was)?
Kelli
"I noticed that same problem, Super8. Maybe the progunners are confusing Dr. King with Malcolm X (assuming they know who the latter was)?"
No Kelli, we just fell off the cabbage truck.
Kelli was MalcolmX not one of your heroes?
(assuming they know who the latter was)? Kelli that was rather uncalled for. Most of us do not live in Chicago or the suburbs.Bu
~Melody~
I believe it is time for a reminder: Pacifism does not work. I don't like violence, but I recognize that allowing, criminals and tyrants to victimize one, is not a a recipe for survival.
There is not a change of subject to self-defense, but rather a pointing out that Dr. King still supported the morality and ethical justification for it along with his non-violent philosophy. This must be illustrated here on Helmke's blog, because Helmke frequently attempts to use material from outside of gun-control to make it seem to fit the gun-control agenda. As we see with this post, It is not beyond Helmke to attempt the same with Dr. King's words. Those of us who feel it important to keep gun-control ideas honest are pointing out distinctions about Dr. King which don't fit the gun-control agenda.
As for "pacifism", that is not a word which means "appeasement" or implies that adherents must be unarmed. Pacifism means "peace-seeking". One can sincerely seek peace through non-violent means, yet retain arms in case self-defense is required or to defend one's group or society in case those with whom one seeks peace aren't in the same mood for peace or non-violence.
Screw around with history all you want, dmeadows; but the fact is Dr. King was an advocate of non-violent resistance.
This was made clear during the Montgomery bus boycott, & from his passionate speeches embracing non-violence as non-cowardly & a 'doctrine of love operating through' Gandhi's teachings (and from MLK's own Christian philosophy). Dr. King also believed that just laws could do good in a society with racial ills, stating: "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty significan
Moreover, though he expressed compassion in a speech in Paris, with the struggles of workers, he did not condone the violence brought on during the '65 Watts riots in which African-Americans armed themselves after looting gun stores in LA ... & which resulted in 32 deaths (27 of whom were black Americans), more than 800 wounded, & thousands arrested.
K
Whoa there. "Conservative corruption"? Explain yourself, if you please. There is nothing "conservative" about what you described, and to suggest there is requires either ignorance or a lie.
I think what you have confused, super8, is the difference between protest and self-defense. One can arm themselves to protect themselves from harm, but still protest peacefully for political and/or social change. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
The Brady Center seems to equate self-defense with retribution. They are completely wrong. Self-defense is the act of neutralizing an immediate threat to your life. Retribution is done after the fact, an attempt to inflict injury on the offender. The two concepts are not equivalent.
Now Paul, we know that Dr. King would not have been pleased at the number of deaths. But I see him as an intelligent man who would have seen evil deeds a man does. And sure he would not blame the machine. Rumor has it that Dr. King own firearms himself. He applied for a carry licenses but was turned down by the local Sheriff. I am sure the good doctor would have frowned on you and your little anti-freedom group.
We know he would not be pleased with the racist group VPC, and there data collecting techniques though conjecture, fabrication and lies. I further do not think he would be amused by your shameless exploitation of his words, or your methods create hysteria and terrify people with your distorted beliefs. Not to mention aid you in the harvesting of money for your anti-constitutional crusade.
I do not think Dr. King would be pleased by your insistence that people do not have a right to protect themselves and their families and property, that you advocate putting your life in the hands of “Dial a Prayer” 911, as the Supreme Court has ruled the Police have no duty to protect you or your family..
I believe he advocated Liberty and Justice, not the police state that you and the other anti freedom groups are striving for. I believe he stood for Justice, and not just “arbitrary law enforcement”
Melody
" From these horrible losses would come the Gun Control Act of 1968, one of the few pieces of national gun control legislation on the books today. "
Here is a clarification from a Gun Control Advocate
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not
to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch
as a majority of Congress did not
want to do the former but were ashamed to
show that their goal was the latter, result
was they did neither. Indeed, this law, first
gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty
years, was one of the grand jokes of our time.
First of all, bear in mind that it was not
passed in one but was a combination of two
laws. The original Act was passed to control
handguns after the Rev. Luther King, Jr.,
had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it
was repealed and repassed to include the control
of rifles and shotguns after the assassination
of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun. . . .
The moralists of our federal legislature as
well as sentimental editorial writers insist
that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial
to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was
certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen
not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell
game, but from the inapplicability of the law
to their deaths.
Robert Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special and
Other Guns, p. 280 (1972).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
