Black Preacher States Loudly That His Gun Is Important to His Church and Community...

Black Preacher States Loudly That His Gun Is Important to His Church and Community...

The Reverend Kenn Blanchard started a national gun club for people of color called the Tenth Cavalry Gun Club “the Buffalo Soldiers”. Today it is known as the Maryland Tenth Cavalry Gun Club.

The Reverend has decried that 20 thousand gun laws passed have not stopped crime, and that people of color are among the most unarmed, most vulnerable and most subjugated to crime people in America.

Reverend Blanchard has worked with all the pro rights organizations, the National Rifle Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, the CATO Institute, Gun Owners of America, and the list continues.

The Reverend Blanchard teaches his parishioners that gun control is racism. He has said, "Gun control is racist. Unless you learn the truth for yourself, you’ll always be a victim. The gun issue is larger than ammunition types, magazine capacities, or gun trade shows."

The Reverend wrote the book 'Black Man With a Gun.'
That author Kenneth Blanchard's book is steeped in history becomes apparent in his very first chapter when he speaks, not only of the Buffalo Soldiers and the Black Panther Party, but to the lesser known, Deacons of Defense, Mary Fields, and Ben Hodges. Throughout his book, "Black Man With A Gun," he continually refers to and explains the historical basis for African American gun ownership
www.amazon.com...'

The Reverend Blanchard has easily admixed Guns and God: "It is easy to be a Christian and advocate gun ownership in principle. It is the application and perceptions that are tough. Most of the people that are against me don’t understand. I want to save lives, stop senseless deaths, and stop the violence but seek a different approach. Training and education save lives. I know this to be true. I learned early that you can’t do the same thing every day and expect a different result."


About Kenn Blanchard: Publisher, Pastor, Protector
kennblanchard.com...

Good for him - Focusing on safety & practical education of previously uninitiated folks regarding firearms coupled with responsible gun ownership will do more to reduce crime in this country than any new law can.

Unfortunately, simple ignorance regarding firearms is the primary cause of the fear & misunderstandings when people start discussing guns.

The right to protect one's family and self from the criminal element is not bound by party affiliation. Everyone deserves that right.

I'd like to add some historical perspective on this with a moderately long quote which is important to read for many items:

www.pbs.org...

It began shortly after the shooting of Denzil Dowell. Easy Bay legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the law that permitted citizens to carry loaded weapons in public places so long as the weapons were openly displayed [see link to California Penal Code, Sections 12031 and 171.c]. What the Mulford law sought to achieve was the elimination of the Black Panther Police Patrols, and it had been tagged "the Panther Bill" by the media.
The Police Patrols had become an integral part of BPP community policy. Members of the BPP would listen to police calls on a short wave radio, rush to the scene of the arrest with law books in hand and inform the person being arrested of their constitutional rights. BPP members also happened to carry loaded weapons, which were publicly displayed, but were careful to stand no closer than ten feet from the arrest so as not to interfere with the arrest.

Passage of the Mulford Bill would essentially end the Panther Police Patrols, so the BPP sent a group to Sacramento, California on May 2nd, 1967 to protest. The group carried loaded rifles and shotguns, publicly displayed and entered the State Capitol building to read aloud Executive Mandate Number 1, which was in opposition to the Mulford Bill. They tried to enter the Assembly Chamber but were forced out of this public place where they then read Executive Mandate Number 1 out on the lawn.

The legislature responded by passing the bill, thus creating the Mulford Act, which was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. This step by the Black Panther Party was enough to put them into national prominence and was a stimulus for growth of the party within the young Black population.

I want to emphasize three points:

1) The Panthers were educating people on their Constitutional Rights.

2) Marched in opposition to a proposed gun control law.

3) The Bill was signed into law by - wait for it - Saint Ronald Reagan. (who just happens to show up a lot in gun control history)

reply to post by FyreByrd


I hear Christians complaining about Muslims blocking New York streets with large prayer meetings. You know, a couple hundred Muslim kneeling, facing the east, bowing and praying....blocking the entire street. And the police do NOTHING to stop the Islamic prayer gathering.

I say to those Christians who complain about the Muslims blocking the street, "Get your entire church congregation out into the street to pray while blocking traffic yourselves. Get a couple more church congregations to join you. Get a thousand or more Christians out into the street blocking traffic. Dare the law to come break up your prayer meeting."

But I think people like to complain while doing nothing. It doesn't make them perspire as much.

Hey, wouldn't it be funny to see a thousand orange robed Hari Krishna take over an airport terminal with singing and chanting and drum beating?

I bet a thousand atheists could block traffic while reciting beat Ginsberg poetry and nobody would try to stop them:

A Supermarket in California

What thoughts I have of you tonight, Walt Whitman, for I walked down the
streets under the trees with a headache self-conscious looking at the full moon.

In my hungry fatigue, and shopping for images, I went into the neon fruit
supermarket, dreaming of your enumerations!
What peaches and what penumbras! Whole families shopping at night! Aisles
full of husbands! Wives in the avocados, babies in the tomatoes! --- and you,
Garcia Lorca, what were you doing down by the watermelons?

So wanting gun control is now racist

I bet those dirty gun grabbers hate puppies and pee in public swimming pools as well

reply to post by coltcall


You know good and well that Christians would be arrested. That or they would pull a " that box over there might be a bomb so you have to leave" thing. They dare not insult Muslims. Even though 9/11 killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
So wanting gun control is now racist

I bet those dirty gun grabbers hate puppies and pee in public swimming pools as well

In the US at least, it always did have its historical basis in racism. Outside of the US that wasn't the case, but certainly inside the US.

reply to post by EvillerBob


When they make a gun law or try to take the guns from one race or ethnic group then Ill say its racist till then this reminds me of people calling anti semitism for every little thing, its just sensationalising the issue and trying to make people feel guilty

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
So wanting gun control is now racist

I bet those dirty gun grabbers hate puppies and pee in public swimming pools as well

And no doubt leave floaters in public swimming pools. Never invite a liberal to a pool party.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by coltcall

 

You know good and well that Christians would be arrested. That or they would pull a " that box over there might be a bomb so you have to leave" thing. They dare not insult Muslims. Even though 9/11 killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

My God....what happened to the days when Christians proudly fed the lions??

Hmmmm....Christians seem to have become wimpy over the past two thousand years?

I don't really understand all this gun thing in America though i say if your 2nd amendment says you keep them then keep them, the laws the law as they say.
If the American people be they black, white, yellow, red etc want to hold onto there right to have a gun then kick people like Pearce Morgan back to the UK as you've already kicked the UK's butts back in 1776 so you don't need there imput (I'm UK by the way lol) I find it a bit strange a minster having a gun mind you as the though shall not kill comes to mind :/
don't no if I've went of the subject or not I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents
Power to the people
Viva America

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by EvillerBob

 

When they make a gun law or try to take the guns from one race or ethnic group then Ill say its racist till then this reminds me of people calling anti semitism for every little thing, its just sensationalising the issue and trying to make people feel guilty

It's all set out in the history books; they've been doing it openly since the mid 1800s and earlier. The target has always been "cheap" firearms which would have been affordable by the poor - more specifically the black population of the time.

There is, and always has been, a disproportionate representation of ethnic groups in the lower income brackets. Gun control has long been enacted by pricing firearms outside of the lower income brackets, a restriction which is de facto on race grounds, if not de jure. NFA tax stamps are a good example of this - at the time it was set around the 1930s* it was the equivalent to around $3,000 on top of the price of the firearm, so only rich people (almost exclusively white people) could afford them.

Gun control has never been about stopping people getting access to firearms, but about stopping "the wrong kind of people" getting access. Think of New York - how many "desirables" in the inner circle have concealed carry permits that the average person would never be able to get? Guns for the rich, the powerful and the connected. Nothing for the rest of you.

*roughly the 30s, can't be bothered to check the exact dates right now.

To hell with commitment.

The guy is trying to convey the importance of community through salvation of security, whether it be guns or bats.

To be loud is to be proud, and that’s infectious. So my final word is, if it’s positive, then good.

What does the color of his skin have to do with anything?

reply to post by Hefficide


Ha.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember every man is our brother and that such love is beautiful.

EDIT: Kinda forget women, which leads onto a new problem ha, you got the gist of what I meant .

Originally posted by ballymoney50
I don't really understand all this gun thing in America though i say if your 2nd amendment says you keep them then keep them, the laws the law as they say.
If the American people be they black, white, yellow, red etc want to hold onto there right to have a gun then kick people like Pearce Morgan back to the UK as you've already kicked the UK's butts back in 1776 so you don't need there imput (I'm UK by the way lol) I find it a bit strange a minster having a gun mind you as the though shall not kill comes to mind :/
don't no if I've went of the subject or not I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents

Power to the people

Viva America

I would suggest that a central element is about power.

Think of it this way - if you decided that the UK government was doing something wrong, what could you do about it? If the Queen did away with elections and took back direct feudal control. What could you do about it? Wave your fists? Use angry words? That is hardly going to worry the soldiers waving thier loaded guns back at you. Power rests entirely with the people who are able to exercise the most influence - in other words, the people who can force you at gunpoint to do what you are told. Revolution is when two groups decide to find out who can exercise the most influence. This is one of the oldest rules in the world and nations have long be born out of this philosophy, which is what makes America academically a fascinating place.

The founding fathers were very aware of this rule, especially as they had come fresh from a revolution where they had stood up to the Crown. They realised that power would only remain in the hands of the people for as long as the people had the ability to stand against the government and remind it that influence lay in the hands of the citizen. They knew that power corrupted, that it was the nature of government to creep and expand and claim power. America was to be comprised of citizens who agreed to let the government perform limited functions on their behalf, not subjects of a government that controlled their lives. Freedom was bought at the price of much bloodshed, and every generation that was to come was given the tools to protect and maintain that freedom.

Does this mean that the American public could realistically stand toe to toe with the modern military and slug it out? As a matter of symmetrical warfare, not a chance. Asymmetric and other considerations is a completely different thread. Retaining the right to try, however, goes to the heart of the nation state. The day when the government finally removes the ability to stand and fight from the citizen is the day that the nation as founded ceases to exist. Whatever is there will no longer be the same America that existed when we were children. It will not be a change for the better.

The 2A does not seek to give any rights; the rights are given to all people and are unalienable - they often talk about a "God-given right" to own firearms, it is not a right given to them by the government. It is not a right to hunt, or a right to self-defence. It is a right to bear arms because ithe ability to do so underpins the civilian control over the government. The 2A is there to specifically stop the government trying to take away those rights. You might notice how much effort they put into trying to neutralise that right.

Some would argue that the Constitution was to be seen as a canary bird - when you saw the government attack those rights, you knew it was time to act, that the government had gone too far. I wouldn't entirely agree with that but I think it is an interesting point to consider.

yeh because if you said every women is your sister who who iron your socks

reply to post by ballymoney50

who who , lol .

Yeah my sister wouldn't iron my socks but rather fart when sitting next to me, watching TV...

(This is not related )

reply to post by EvillerBob


Totally agree with you there I've had to much chocolate to-day and keep ranting lol its a woman thing and it goes with age
Thank you for your imput anyway though I'll have to read it again so it can sink in through the chocolate haze