Ann Coulter Is Essentially Right
By Anthony Gregory • Friday April 20, 2012 11:22 AM PDT • 16 Comments
Even with that caveat, it is a rare thing for me to say. But I agree with the thrust of Ann Coulter’s latest column, and the main argument she has been making in her media appearances about it: Those who fear anti-black racism should favor that blacks arm themselves. Even more important, we should recognize that gun control in this country (as in others) has historically been used to oppress minorities, particularly racial minorities. Laws disarming blacks during slavery, Black Codes, and Jim Crow marked the first major instances of gun control in this country. And assuming the most racially charged narrative concerning the Trayvon Martin case were true, the answer would indeed not be more gun control, as every liberal has seemed to suggest, but, as Coulter proposes, the opposite: If blacks fear violent attacks from whites, they should protect themselves by their unqualified right to bear arms.
Here is where I think Coulter goes astray. First, her partisanship almost ruins her point. On O’ Reilly she speaks in partisan absolutes:
The history books will often try and twist the history by referring to the KKK and the racists as southerners. Oh no, no the Republicans in the south weren’t discriminatory and by the way some of the Democrats up north were. . . .
Absurd is this idea that there were no Republican racists in the age of Jim Crow, that the problem was only bigoted Democrats in the South and North. It’s true that the South did not monopolize racism in the era, but neither did the Democratic Party. One counterexample is so stark that it should overturn Coulter’s whole argument: The Indiana KKK, under the leadership of Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson, effectively ran the state Republican Party in the mid-1920s, passing a law in the General Assembly to commemorate a “Klan Day” at the State Fair, ousting Republican Governor Warren T. McCray, who opposed the bill, even having him jailed, and replacing him with Klan member Republican Edward Jackson, who remained governor of Indiana for the rest of the decade.
More specifically, the racial angle in American gun control has not been the exclusive domain of the Democrats, either. In California, now known as one of the most anti-gun states in the union, it was Republicans who first enacted major gun control. Assemblyman Don Mulford’s legislation was signed in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan, effectively preventing Californians from freely carrying firearms, and was protested by Black Panthers carrying firearms to the State Capitol in defense of the right to bear arms.
This touches on the other weakness is Coulter’s position. She urges blacks to join the NRA, which I would certainly prefer to them (or anyone else) actively trying to pass more gun control. But the conservative NRA’s approach to firearms regulation does not go far enough, to put it charitably. There is an argument many Republicans make (although Coulter might not be among them) that the government should not enact new laws, but rather enforce the gun laws on the books now.
It is this dynamic that leads to such horrible gun rights records for Republican administrations. Bush’s Project Safe Neighborhoods, along with his active disarming of New Orleans residents in the aftermath of Katrina, rank among the most horrible anti-gun measures of recent memory, whereas Obama, who has been pro-government and anti-liberty on almost every issue, has been anomalously more pro-freedom, arguably, on the Second Amendment, loosening regulations on carrying guns in parks and on Amtrak.
The conservative attempt to enforce the laws on the books is a big part of the problem, as those laws themselves are oppressive. Indeed, the greatest threat to the liberties and safety of private individuals and communities comes from government itself, including its gun laws. In many poor black communities, victims of crime cannot even report their use of firearms to defend themselves, because they fear being locked up by police for having a gun without a license, or triggering a parole violation (often in connection to a victimless crime like a drug conviction) by exercising the right to bear arms. If a gun law is unconstitutional, unjust, and an encroachment on human rights, that it is invalid and does not morally bind anyone—it is indeed an act of tyranny for it to be enforced, which I would say is the case about all gun laws. The very real assault on the right of blacks to keep and bear arms is an ongoing despotic reality, and it is being waged in many cases under the guise of the very law-and-order mentality that all too many conservatives embrace.
Coulter, on the other hand, while not directly attacking this mentality, does not appear to embrace it, and her call for blacks to arm themselves is something we should welcome. It is being taken as somewhat ironic by many conservatives, an attempt to be provocative for its own sake, and it is taken as offensive by liberals, but in her comments, despite their problems, we see the truth: The right to bear arms is primarily about defending the weak against the strong, the minority against the majority, the disenfranchised against the advantaged criminal class, and, ultimately, the people against the state. Empowering the people through gun rights, to protect themselves and their communities, and removing power from the police state are inextricably linked. It is something both left and right should come to learn, and Coulter deserves credit for at least making points outside the normal and highly flawed spectrum.
For more on the racism of gun control, see the Independent Institute’s important book Securing Civil Rights: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen Halbrook.
Thanks to Lindsay Boyd for alerting me to Coulter’s TV comments.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Criminal Justice, Gun Control, Law, Liberty, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Police, Racism, Second Amendment 
Bush did not disarm any one in New Orleans. Those were state and local police slamming little old ladies against the walls of their homes to get their guns, under a democrat gov. and mayor, not federal agents or soldiers.
As for Obama being more pro-freedom ... laws to carry weapons in national parks were in the works long before he took office. Then there’s that little program called “Fast and Furious”. Obama officials told local fire arms dealers to look the other way when they (the dealers) voiced concern over the “straw purchase” gun buyers. Then the Obama Admin. blamed “weak” gun laws on these guns showing up in Mexico. Not to mention the ones used to kill at least one Boarder Control Agent and other Americans, and now they are all stonewalling or pleading the 5th.
Pablo | Apr 20, 2012 | Reply
I wasn’t aware that U.S. Marshals were under the jurisdiction of state and local police: “[O]n Wednesday night, Guidos said, armed federal agents identifying themselves as U.S. marshals confiscated her weapons and ordered her and six friends to leave by noon Thursday.” This would only be consistent with the Bush administration’s disarming of innocent civilians of Baghdad, confiscating weapons that even Saddam Hussein allowed the people to own.
As for Fast and Furious, it is quite a scandal, but not exactly an example of gun control, although Obama’s rhetoric about the matter has been horrible.
Anthony Gregory | Apr 20, 2012 | Reply
The one thing that Ms.Coulter is correct about is that Gun Laws are meant to disarm minorities so that they can more easily be exploited and controlled. After all,if during the 2nd World War,if every Jew met every Nazi,who was trying to round them up,at the Jew’s front gate with a shotgun or automatic weapon the Holocaust might have been prevented or at least slowed down. But the Nazis made it illegal,under pain of death,for a Jew to possess a firearm.
libertarian jerry | Apr 20, 2012 | Reply
FYI, during the times of the civil rights movement, Robert Williams wrote “Negores with Guns,” detailing his time organizing the Black Armed Guard protecting black communities from racist acts of violence. Lets just say we all should be practicing “armed self-reliance.”
Anon | Apr 20, 2012 | Reply
Where has Ann Coulter been when black kids shoot cops to protect themselves from having their freedom taken away over unjust laws? You would think she and all the others that rant about the right to bear arms is all about protecting us from tyranny would be applauding cop killers.
The fact is that most conservatives (and too many libertarian minarchists) deify government bureaucrats that carry guns. In fact, giving a government worker (soldier, cop, investigator) a gun, and the incompetent government worker is transformed into an instant hero.
The Ann Coulters of this world have no problem with violent thugs enforcing government rules against all sorts of victimless “crimes.”
Coulter’s screed is pretty twisted and really doesn’t make much sense in any reality based context. If she wants more black people to carry guns, it’s probably because she wants her government heroes with guns to have an excuse to shoot them.
I don’t think Coulter is actually calling for more blacks to arm themselves, rather she is saying that if those stupid liberals really believe that racists are running around attacking black people, then they should call for black people to arm themselves.
In reality, serious people never claimed racists were running around killing blacks. They were criticizing the fact that an unarmed black kid could be shot down by a vigilante and the police didn’t arrest the killer based on a rather sketchy investigation.
I’ll be anxious to see Coulter applaud the next time a cop is shot down by a black person not willing to lose their freedom over $20 worth of crappy street coke or for exercising their “God-given right” to carry a gun as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the “greatest document ever written in human history.”
Tom Blanton | Apr 20, 2012 | Reply
http://a-human-right.com/
I do like the way this young man writes. . .
He says that gun control is “sadism by proxy,” and I agree.
What I hear when someone talks about restricting gun ownership, or setting up “Victim Disarmament Zones,” what I hear is, “I’d rather see your daughter tied up with her own pantyhose and raped than allow her an effective means of defense.”
James | Apr 21, 2012 | Reply
Fast and Furious is a bigger scandal than Watergate, and part of the scandal is the media helping to cover it up instead of being the ones demanding a candid look at what happened. AG Eric Holder is stonewalling and covering the facts and should be relieved of duty until a special prosecutor causes this adminstration comes clean on who allowed what to occur. There was the death of at least one, and perhaps more innocent agents that occured.
bill hinkley | Apr 21, 2012 | Reply
Yes the “good” German citizen could own a gun hence the people could’ve overthrowed the Nazis if they felt they were a tyrannical regime – but they didn’t, fancy that?
Gil | Apr 22, 2012 | Reply
Indeed, Tom Blanton, Libertarians should be celebrating cop-killers should such event occur.
Gil | Apr 22, 2012 | Reply
Gil wrote, “...the “good” German citizen could own a gun hence the people could’ve overthrowed the Nazis if they felt they were a tyrannical regime...”
Hmm, that’s not what I was taught, nor does it jive with what I’ve read online from those that were there.
Got a source for your statement? No? I didn’t think so. Your comment reminds me of Pablo’s ignorant statement RE: U.S. Marshals and pretending as though Bush had no role, fits right in with many others I’ve come across.
clark | Apr 23, 2012 | Reply
The NRA is not the “far right” organization that the far left pretends it is. Rather, it is the middle ground of gun ownership. On the oppressive extreme one finds those who wish to ban all guns in civilian hands leaving the monopoly on power to the State. Organizations that support liberty tend to be those which seek to eliminate most gun laws. Gun Owners of America and CCKBA are of this sort.
Waddling along in the middle is the bloated, largely disconnected, “go-along-to-get-along” NRA.
It is instructive that the two most important gun-rights cases filed in the past 75 years were filed by a lawyer on his own, over the objection of the NRA. When it became clear the cases were going to the Supreme Court, the NRA attempted to muscle its way into the conversation. I suspect their second greatest fear was that the cases would go against the Second Amendment view, while their greatest fear was that they might be seen as irrelevant in the gun control debate.
There are, and have been, notable exceptions to the NRA’s sloth in defense of the Second Amendment. Marion Hammer, for example, has been a titan of gun rights protections, leading the charge for nationwide reform of “shall-issue” laws, and more recently, “Stand Your Ground” laws. Unfortunately, the “shall issue” laws are still only a half-step towards Constitutional freedom. Only states like Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming allow citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit, though 12 more states are considering following them.
Still, every advance in the name of freedom puts the lie to the gun prohibitionists’ cries that armed citizens will lead to “gunfights over every traffic accident” and “blood in the streets”. In general, as citizens are better able to resist criminals, criminals are less inclined to risk their lives.
The Trayvon Martin case is one such example. Far from being a case of a “vigilante” who shot an innocent teenager, the story being painted by the evidence is that of a man struggling for his life against a thug who was bashing his head against the concrete. By all appearances, Martin got what he deserved – and will perhaps serve as a lesson to other young thugs concerning just what it is they risk when they initiate a criminal attack.
BambiB | Apr 24, 2012 | Reply
The Joann Guidos story is a single data point. She may have misidentified her malefactors as federal. They may have misidentified themselves as federal. They may have been acting entirely outside their rules of engagement (increasingly likely when you consider that no one in the federal government seems to have a record of what black hole her gun collection disappeared into).
Even if this all went down the way it was reported in the Washington Post (really — citing the Washington Post on a gun-related topic??), it’s a single outlier, and the ONLY one that implicates the federal government.
Meanwhile, we have dozens of other reports — some of them even on videotape — of cops and rent-a-cops under Democratic city and state control confiscating guns and mistreating gun-owning citizens.
Bush did a lot of stupid liberal things as president, but I’m pretty confident that this was not one of them.
Henry Bowman | Apr 24, 2012 | Reply
Although I agree with your comment,always remember personal firearms are one thing,I have a few, but military and police hardware is quite another.If they want your guns or want to take somebody out,they won`t stand a chance against that firepower.
Bill Singley | Apr 24, 2012 | Reply
Disarming any civilian personnel located inside a war zone, particularly where guerrilla warfare is being waged, is not only logical but a necessity!
B Morrison | Aug 5, 2012 | Reply
Bill, This is exactly what the British tried to do to the Colonists during the American Revolution. Thank God they failed.
In contrast, the Nazis disarmed those who they sought to control and rendered them unable to defend themselves.
David J. Theroux | Aug 6, 2012 | Reply