So, we continue to do our work of encouraging, inspiring, and agitating the African masses and all peace and justice loving humanity. In this case, the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution is our focus. That amendment, written as an add to the so-called bill of rights on December 15, 1791, was the result of a struggle between the ruling class European men to ensure that European men had the right to form and maintain "state militias" as an alleged safe guard against the supposed "tyranny" of the federal U.S. government.
Now, it should be about as obvious as the sun rising each morning for anyone with even a cursory understanding of U.S. history to read between the lines and properly interpret the real objective of this amendment, but the problem here is the phase "cursory understanding." I participated in a discussion with some people yesterday where we assessed and commented on a picture going around of a woman breastfeeding her baby in public. The caption to the picture read "this is disgusting! It should never be permitted in public!" Since the woman had her flip flop shoes resting on the table, the picture and caption was intended as some sort of silly joke to imply the caption was really about the flip flops and not the breastfeeding. Most of the people commenting were overjoyed to point to anyone attempting to defend the women's right to breastfeed in public that those defenders were quick to judge, missing the point about the flip flops on the table. As I indicated to this group, the joke could never be funny because the only reason the joke could even be attempted as a joke in the first place is because of the commodification of non-men's bodies and the related reality that women are harassed everyday for feeding their children in public. The fact this obvious fact was missed by all those who wanted to focus on the stupid flip flops is a clear example of the effectiveness of dumb down techniques in this society today. Consequently, although the real objective of the so-called second amendment should be clear to all, there is no question that a large percentage of people actually believe that the language in that amendment was specific to people - meaning European people - having the right to bear arms and nothing else. To the masses of uncritical thinkers in this country, that is really all there is to that question.
To hard cold truth of course is that the actual debate behind the amendment was behind the question of the consequences of slavery being ended in 1863-65. When this happened, the masses of Africans, anxious as hell to escape the trauma of slave plantations in the Southern U.S., fled the Southern U.S. in the millions after the civil war ended. There are so many myths around this period designed to uphold the fictional "greatness" around the U.S. First, the civil war itself was not fought to end slavery so the Northern soldiers who fought in the civil war, contrary to what so-called European historians want you to believe, did not fight to end slavery. They didn't fight for that just cause in that war anymore than any U.S. troops have ever fought for any just cause then and leading up to today. As as always been the case, troops in the U.S. armed forces are fighting to develop and maintain the capitalist empire. Those troops who fought in that civil war were fighting to help the North win to protect the rights of large and developing capitalist business interests to expand their industry into the Southern U.S. By protecting the slave institution, the Southern plantation industry was slowing down the industrialization process e.g. the mechanization of the production of products. The Northern Industrialists knew that industrialization was the key to their ability to dominate economically so their support for the North to win the war was simply a business decision. It had absolutely nothing to do with our fate one way or another and Lincoln's own words about our freedom confirm that. The second piece of misinformation goes back to the mythical belief, held up high by European people today, that the so-called second amendment was there to protect White people from the U.S. federal government. Those plantation industry owners? They were bleeding money prolifically after slavery. Although they institutionalized every illegal and immoral effort imaginable to intimidate our people into staying on as plantation sharecroppers, they were not successful in extorting enough of us to do that so these plantation people used the U.S. legislative process to protect their rights (as they always do). They starting employing roving bands of armed thugs, called posses, to travel the countryside and terrorize Africans into turning around and heading back to work as sharecroppers on the Southern plantations. The so-called second amendment was simply the lobbying effort on behalf of these criminals to push to ensure that these bands of terrorists had the legal protection to carry out their barbaric acts against our people. There is no other way you can effectively explain why the first version of the so-called second amendment was drafted with the word "nation" included by James Madison, only to be debated and changed to "state" to ensure these roving bands of degenerates could operate with immunity in their repression of our people. This is ill-refutable despite whatever constant efforts the apologists for white supremacy make to try and cleanse their racist and terrorist history. And, then, to add insult to injury, those same primitive elements pushed to employ those same posses as developing police departments in the Southern U.S. By 1800, the men who had terrorized our people on the wagon trails were now licensed police in cities throughout the U.S. Thus, effectively demolishing the myth that police were ever here to "protect and serve" African people. When they shoot us down today they are simply fulfilling their historic mission, carrying out the objectives their forefathers intended them to perform.
With this proper interpretation of history, it becomes much easier to understand why any effort African people make to bear arms in this country, from the African Blood Brotherhood in the 1920s, to the Deacons for Defense in 1964, to the Black Panther Party in 1965 in Alabama, and then 1966 in Oakland, California, etc., are consistently met with opposition from everyone, including those hypocrites who claim to want gun rights for all "law abiding" people. The U.S. will never be comfortable with Africans owning firearms because as that drunk European college student told me back in 1980 "we are afraid that once you all get the chance, you will do to us what we have always done to you."
Europeans shouldn't worry about us that way. We have never been, nor will we ever be, a bloodthirsty people. If we were, we would have certainly risen up and started slitting their throats years ago. History will definitely judge that had we done so, we would have easily been within our rights, but that's not who we are. We are a humanistic people. Humanism is an essential element of African culture. Walk down the street in any African city in Africa and observe someone commit a crime like snatching someone's purse. Multiple people will take off after that person, catch them, and return the stolen item to its owner. This pales in comparison to the consistent history of Europeans brutally killing, raping, doing whatever they want to us, anywhere in the world, and other Europeans standing around and enjoying the barbaric scene. There is no equivalence anywhere for African people. We don't want revenge. We do want justice. That justice looks like us organizing against this backward system, including us learning how to own and properly manage firearms, despite what their constitution says and what their organizations do.