Ann Coulter: NRA’s Proud History of Fighting KKK Airbrushed from History by Democrats

KKK preparing a cross to be burned in Jackson ...
Ann Coulter: NRA's Proud History of Fighting KKK Airbrushed from History by Democrats (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Every now and then conservative windbag Ann Coulter makes a valid point, but then she goes back to being her onerous self. She wrote an article stating the National Rifle Association has gone to bat to blacks since the end of the Civil War, even taking a stand when civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was denied a gun permit because of his race. I have to be honest, I don’t care much for the whole gun debate, but I found Ann Coulter’s article pretty riveting. That doesn’t mean I agree with her on her positions on the issues, but she made a valid point that the Democrats and their then-offshoot, the Ku Klux Klan, were a thorn in the sides of blacks at the height of the struggle for racial justice and equality. But I guess the tables have turned now since that fringe element that has now swung to the Republican camp.

Here’s an excerpt from Ann Coulter’s article entitled, “Negroes with Guns” (note the title, which is meant to be provocative):

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.


In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks — even freemen — could not own guns.

Chief Justice Roger Taney’s infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: “[I]t would give them the full liberty,” he said, “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”


After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted “Black Codes,” denying black Americans the rights of citizenship — such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms — while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.


Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.  Source

So, while Ann Coulter’s screed about the NRA going to bat for blacks in the early days is quite riveting, let’s fast-forward to 2012 and the Trayvon Martin case, to see if her argument is strong. George Zimmerman, who murdered Trayvon Martin, has a right to bear arms, but the “stand your ground” law behind which he seems to be hiding doesn’t seem to be a plausible reason for why he shot the teen. You see, how one defines being threatened varies from person to person. Therein lies the problem with the “stand your ground” law. Besides, he formulated the opinion early in the encounter with the teen that he was up to no good and “they always get away.” He was told quite clearly not to follow him, but he did. He should have gotten in his car and sat there as the 911 dispatcher told him.

I am beholden to neither the Republican or Democratic parties. I find the Democratic Party has taken the black community for granted and the Republican Party doesn’t even try to appeal to the black community, but that’s for another debate. So, whether the NRA gives a hoot about blacks or not is quite irrelevant in this case. It doesn’t have a bone in this dogfight, other than the “stand your ground” law must be amended or abolished because it cannot adequately define what constitutes a threat to one’s life.  Nice try Ann Coulter, just remind blacks of what a group of whites did for them during one of the darkest periods in American history. Let’s be real. The NRA didn’t do all that you claim for the love of blacks. Further, I don’t believe one bit that KKK is making a comeback. Gone are the days of Jim Crow and seeing black men hanging from trees without public outrage and pushback.

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • [quote]
    . George Zimmerman, who murdered Trayvon Martin, has a right to bear arms, but the “stand your ground” law behind which he seems to be hiding doesn’t seem to be a plausible reason for why he shot the teen[/quote]




    The JUDGE is the one who must appraise the veracity of the claim.  THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE YET.

    Do you remember the 15 year old teen, about 4 weeks ago who shot his FRIENDS,  murdered one Black girl and paralyzed the other in Atlanta?

    HIS LAWYER SAID HE DID NOT DO IT – this despite having called the paralyzed to apologize!!!!

    His LAWYER was planning to run with the “He didn’t do it.  He was not there” defense.  HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT than what George Zimmerman is planning with reference to his claim to “Self Defense”?

    You are guilty of taking your distaste for Stand Your Ground and using it to cloud the facts of the Zimmerman case.
    Despite the LIES that the media has told about Stand Your Ground already – THE JUDGE is the one who decides the applicability NOT the police officer who arrested him and let him go. 

    • Constructive Feedback — Nice try. I guess nothing else bothered you about Ann Coulter’s screed. So, it’s okay for George Zimmerman to mount his defense and for the public not to say anything, but for the parents of Trayvon Martin to sit by and allow their son’s name to be dragged through the mud? I believe the stand your ground laws are problematic on the basis of how one defines a threat on his or her life. Let’s not forget George Zimmerman’s first lawyer said stand your ground didn’t apply and now this lawyer is singing another tune.

  • Mark

    the logic I was able to decipher from Coulter’s babbling was 1.) blacks under 17 should have conceal/carry licenses, 2.) since they are democrats, the KKK is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro equal rights, you get the point; I might sound nuts but I’m not the one who said those things. She did say the KKK were democrats, didn’t she?

  • vsop4u

    “stand your ground” leaves the decision as to threat of imminent danger to the victim. if the phsyical evidence bears this out, as it did in this case, it’s a good shoot. the prosecutor left out exculpatory evidence in the affadavit and claimed profiling based on nothing. let’s hope the judge rules favorably on the petition to dismiss, this clunker has wasted enough time and money already.

  • Rob

    It’s because the democrats of those days were essentially the republicans of today and vice versa.. That’s the reason. Ann should know this,