Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of stand your ground laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBCS Karen Finney blamed the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.)

This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.

We dont know the facts yet, but lets assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, Americas oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this countrys history.

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.

(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLUer, but every ACLUer is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)

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 Taneys 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.

With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.

Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.

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

For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.

The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant made it a federal felony to deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property. This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.

Under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant deployed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.

But the Klan had a few resurgences in the early and mid-20th century. Curiously, wherever the Klan became a political force, gun control laws would suddenly appear on the books.

This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. 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.

Hows that may issue gun permit policy working for you?

The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.

A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.

But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.

Williams repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, Negroes With Guns. In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.

As the Klan found out, its not so much fun when the rabbits got the gun.

The NRAs proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.

In the preface to Negroes With Guns, Williams writes: I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence.

Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK. But wherever the truth lies in that case, gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense.

- Ann Coulter

Sheep following a misguided media-whore who will distort the facts to create notoriety for monetary gain. And the saps of the world fall for it.

I knew it...

A stupid Liberal would come out of the wood work to condemn Ann Coulter for quoting a BLACK MAN a.k.a. Robert F. Williams and the book HE WROTE "Negroes With Guns".

Now, please point out in the article ANYTHING that was false.

Ann has a way of mixing things together so she can't be held accountable for the things she says. When proven wrong she frequently says "I don't think you are right". Even when shown the evidence she rarely, if ever, admits to her mistake. In this article she makes out like all Negros that were killed or assaulted did not have guns to defend themselves because there was a law. Not true. She also tries to make out like only Democrats were members of the Ku Klux Klan. Not true either. The same can be said for those who defend the second amendment and own guns as being only Republicans. Not true. Democrats support the second amendment and many own guns. So that is a distortion of the facts as well. Just blindly following along and believing her words to be totally true when they are clearly not, is foolish.

Now that is funny.

You came to those conclusions from reading that article? Really??? Maybe you need a refresher course in reading and comprehension.

She pointed out several FACTS that you Liberals deny day in and day out and when she backs up these FACTS with proven history you continue to deny them. That is (in your words) foolish.

Ann is very good at shining light in places Liberals like to hide.

LMAO!!!

Ann Coulter or Michael Moore?

You need to clarify your question.

Both Michael and Ann present facts. However, Michael likes to take away and add to facts he presents. In other words, he offers his opinions as facts and leads people to believe them as so. Of course those of us with the smallest zest of common sense can tell the difference.

When Ann does the same thing you can undoubedly distinguish her opinions from the facts she presents.

In short, Ann is A LOT more trustworthy than Michael any day of the week.

If you think Ann Coulter is truthful in all that she says you need to talk to a doctor about your mental health. Michael Moore likes to hype the truth and obviously sells it from a liberal perspective, but I have not heard him play with the truth as much as Ann does.

that has been brainwashed. It's OK, the mind is powerful. There is help, however, in removing those deeply held, but false, beliefs.

MM does not play with the truth, he lies. By the definition of the word. AC uses a lot of satire, and to one with a left slant (as you seem to have) would be considered a 'liar' since her view does not agree with that deeply held, but false, beliefs. Get help now, before Obama and his minions have taken control of the medical services and turned them into another government run, ruinous program.

Thanks.

How about an AC lie...

Anybody that believes anything Michael Moore says is an idiot. He is a proven liar. Period.

.......

Michael Moore will interview 100 people, 97 of them are against his position, 3 are in favor of his position. Guess which three people show up in the movie? Michael Moore is the king of distortion.

Thanks.

Where Michael Moore is Wrong
By John Stossel

Michael Moore loves government.

OK, he doesn't love a government headed by George W. Bush, but he believes that once the Democrats are in charge, government will do a better job providing health care.

In his new movie, "Sicko," he praises government-controlled health care systems in Canada and Europe. He suggests that Americans pay more for health care but have a shorter life expectancy than people in other countries because our health care is driven "by profit."

He is wrong in so many ways.

First, life expectancy is no measure of a country's medical system. Lifestyle and culture matter more, and Americans are different.

Interviewing Moore for an upcoming health care special on "20/20," I said, "In America we kill each other more often. We shoot each other. We have more car accidents. Forgive me, more of us look like ... you."

He smiled at that, but still argued that that people live longer in Canada "because they never have to worry about paying to go see the doctor. That means at the first sign of being sick they go right away to the doctor cause they're not worrying about whether or not they can afford it."

Please.

Freedom brings anxiety, but its other rewards are so superior to passive care from a smothering government

America's medical system has problems, but profit is the least of it. Government mandates, overregulation and a tax code that pushes employer-paid health insurance prevent the free market from performing its efficient miracles. Six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties. That kills the market. Patients rarely shop around, and doctors rarely compete on price or service.

Moore told me, "Government can do things right. ... My dad gets his Social Security check every month. Comes not only every month, it comes on the same day through the so-called 'dilapidated' U.S. mail. ... [A]sk your grandparents what they think of Medicare. Although it has its flaws, although it may be underfunded, it's a much better program than the HMO that somebody has."

Underfunded? Medicare has a 75-year $34 trillion unfunded liability! Its costs are growing faster than inflation. Social Security has a 75-year $5 trillion unfunded liability. These are Ponzi schemes that will be bankrupt before Moore reaches retirement age. The U.S. mail manages to deliver his dad's checks, but compare its performance to FedEx or UPS. The Post Office said it wasn't possible to deliver packages overnight.

I want FedEx health care: innovation, new cancer treatments, hip replacements and pain relief. We get that from private-sector competition, not government lethargy.

Moore said, "You don't introduce profit into your city water department."

He's wrong about that, too. As I wrote in "Give Me a Break", Jersey City, New Jersey's water tasted foul and failed safety tests. City workers said there wasn't much they could do. In fact, water prices would have to be raised ... just to maintain the lousy service they had.

So Jersey City turned its water system over to a for-profit company. Within months it had fixed the pipes government workers said couldn't be fixed, and for the first time in years, Jersey City's water met the highest cleanliness standard. Taxpayers saved $35 million.

The private company could do it better and cheaper because their skills were honed by constant competition.

Private competitors innovate or die. Government workers do what they did last year. That's why I want the private sector to provide my health care. Pursuit of profit will give us our best medicines and medical devices.

I'll pay you $1,000 if you can name one thing government does more efficiently than the private sector.

Moore laughed at me, saying, "You are, like, so Thirteenth Century," but he conceded that America's founding libertarian philosophy has made us a rich and innovative country. "Look at everything we've invented," he told me. "I say to my British friends, can you tell me something you invented in the last 50 years. I mean, what have you given us?"

"Can they come up with anything?" I asked.

"No, they have a hard time. That can-do spirit served us well in building this country."

Served? It still does. And will -- if government would just get out of the way.

You are wasting your time responding to the likes of the Liberal idiot that asked you to post a lie from Michael Moore. These people know damn well that MM is a liar yet they choose to believe him anyway. Same thing with Obama. They will eventually weed themselves out of the gene pool by their own means.

They are dumber than a bag of hammers...

You are grasping at straws. He is stating his opinion and as the "repugnicon" keeps saying, "opinons" are not "facts".

Take if from real Cuban's then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvmQHo8I9TI

He said water companies could not fix the water issue caused by government. Yet they did actually fix it.

Geeezzz I give up you are obviously unable to defereniate between opinion and what he states as fact. No helping you.

You are really stretching. Try again.

eom

nanee, nanee, poo poo.

MM is just a fat, lying, slob. And a member of the 1%

what does that article have to do with "thinking for ones self"?
If I follow your logic, a person can't utter any words or thoughts that didn't originate in thier own brain. Just briliant.

I'll go one step further. Since we Saps need someone to blindly follow for our daily dose of the truth, why don't you provide it for us... then we can blindly follow you.

ya wanna follow me, that's fine. I'll try to give you updates. As for the question, just what in the article did you NOT believe? Or does it just go against what you've always been told? I know things can get pretty confusing when we're presented with something that doesn't go along with our beliefs but it's the ones that wholly dismiss what they don't know or understand to be true that are really in trouble. So as I said, if ya wanna follow me, ok, you just might not like where I take ya.

"Sheep following a misguided media-whore who will distort the facts to create notoriety for monetary gain. And the saps of the world fall for it."

Was that some attempt at rebuttal, or just simply a random statement (one usually reserved for Rush Limbaugh articles)?

Every word in that statement about Ann is true.

...they're just trying to start trouble. Talk about racists!!!