Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 7.52.00 AM

As we’ve all learned by now, the real reason for Dylann Roof’s massacre of nine innocent churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina was the Confederate battle flag that no longer flies over the capitol. The decision to lower the banner for good has predictably provoked protest by both supporters and detractors. And a number of flag-wavers have been set upon by groups of angry blacks who now consider showing the stars and bars on par with shouting the ‘N’ word in public. If you came upon a scene like the one in the video above — an anti-Confederate crowd beating a reported KKK protester — would you draw your weapon to defend the victim?

Recommended For You

222 Responses to Question of the Day: Would You Draw Your Gun To Help This Man?

  1. Who would have the time to interfere when they are busy recording. If you make the video and post it, you are sure to get many views on Youtube!

  2. If an Iranian was burning a U.S. flag and was set upon, I’d do nothing to help him. I don’t see that scenario any different from this one. Why on earth would someone wave a flag of our vanquished enemy, in front of people who’s ancestors were victimized by it? I call the stupid at best.

      • @George–“If an Iranian was burning a U.S. flag and was set upon, I’d do nothing to help him. I don’t see that scenario any different from this one.”
        Fascism is not a sought out trait in Americans and give it a rest with Iran old timer, as our Allie Saudi Arabia is where most of the terrorists that kill Americans come from. Iran bombing Israel is suicidal but the Iranians need an enemy to justify wasted capital investments just like WE Americans do.
        The first amendment means nothing to you and your indifference to violence on a man exercising his American rights is disgusting.

        “Why on earth would someone wave a flag of our vanquished enemy, in front of people who’s ancestors were victimized by it?” Vanquished enemy, nice try but the Southern Rebels were and always will be part of American history, well maybe not always after white guilt revisionists get their ways.

        One positive thing about slavery that White guilters and black people won’t and can never deny is that without black people being sold to white people by other black people, their ancestors would still be in Africa.

        “I call the stupid at best.” Stupidity is not worthy of a public execution nor is it an excuse for allowing a man to be executed.

        Black people being offended is not a legal or moral excuse for them to transform into a violent mob of savages.
        If anything this article is a good reason for carrying and AR-15 or AK-47, with plenty of extra magazines.

        • So sad to so many commenters avoiding the question. i’d have dumped my mag, reloaded, dumped again, reloaded… Etc.

        • I agree 100%. No one should be a victim just because they are exercising there 1st Amendment rights

        • >> Vanquished enemy, nice try but the Southern Rebels were and always will be part of American history, well maybe not always after white guilt revisionists get their ways.

          Yes, it will. In the same way that, say, NSDAP are and always will be a part of the German history.

    • Same here. Plus, that man has the right to carry as much as I do. He should exercise some responsibility, not to mention that the flag is a symbol of a the confederacy, which was established specifically to protect slavery. Why would you fly that? Are Arabs going to fly the ISIS flag 200 years from now and claim it’s about Arab pride?

      • I can understand most people north of the Mason-Dixon line not understanding the importance of the Confederate flag to some of the southerners, but please understand history completely before you think the the civil war was all about slavery. Slavery played a much smaller roll than most of the history books let on(have you ever heard the saying “the victores write the history books”?), it had to do with states rights, over taxation of exported products, free trade…. I’m not defending the Confederate flag, but I am saying it is a part of our history and it represents southern heritage to most and is not a symbol of hate as many have pinned it as. He has just as much right to wave it as these other people do to disgrace the American flag or wave whatever they want.

        • You want to give history lessons you should get your terms right. The battle flag of the army of northern virginia is not the “confederate flag”

        • States rights? Free trade? Nobody in their right mind was going to fight a war that killed 750,000 American for states rights and free trade.

          We think of the South prior to the War as an agrarian society, but land was not the major asset in Southern states. Slaves, on the other hand, were portable wealth. The average price for a slave is estimated to be $400 in 1850. Even small farms had slaves. Gen. Grant ran a relative’s farm. It was small and had one slave. And by the dawn of the war, there were 5 million slaves in America.

          Aside from the economics of slavery, there was the driving fear that Northern interests, represented by Lincoln, would emancipate the slaves. This scared the hell out of the South, who expected a terrible retribution were that to occur.

          States rights revolved around slavery. Free trade revolved around the slaves, who were producing the cotton and tobacco that the South was shipping to England and the rest of Europe, among other places. Sure, there were plenty of disagreements between the North and South, but it wasn’t until the Republicans — a party founded on emancipation — took office did those disagreements involve wholesale slaughter.

        • Agreed (it’s not simply a symbol of slavery/racism)
          Agreed (it’s his right to wave it where ever he wants)
          It’s also then up to him to deal with the consequences of his actions.

        • What Ralph said.

          Also, that flag IS a sybol of hateful bigotry, whether that fact fits in your personal narrative or not.

        • Hmmm, Ralph, swap state rights for colonial rights and free trade for over taxation / under representation and it lines up pretty closely with the Revolutionary War, yeah, who would fight a war for those reasons??? Bigger issue I’ve come to see in recent years is if a group of states vote to succeed by popular vote what right is it of DC to stop them? By 1860 whatever no one alive had voted to be part of the Union in the first place…

        • You’re right that the civil war was not about slavery until the emancipation proclamation (which did not free a single slave…it only applied to states currently in rebellion, which didn’t recognize Lincoln as their commander in chief).

          But things change. A swastika is no longer just a Tibetan good luck charm, and the flags in question are no longer just symbols of resistance to the war of northern aggression.

          People need to move on.

        • @Chad A, if you could string together another couple of false equivalents, you could be a politician.

        • The states that told us why they were seceding all said they were seceding to protect slavery. They didn’t want federal interference with slavery. They didn’t want the federal government to bar slavery in the territories.

          While arguably the war itself was about more than slavery, if there had been no slavery there would have been no secession, and without secession, and the Southern attack on Fort Sumter there would have been no war.

        • @Ralph, of course not exact equivalents, when are there ever? But in a nutshell a group of peoples deciding they no longer wanted to be ruled by the existing ruling establishment voted and then fought for their desired independence. I would say those are pretty similar…

        • Yep note about slavery:

          “The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.”

          “A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
          In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
          Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

          Slavery played no role right? I mean clearly they only said it was about slavery, so that they could hide the fact that it was really about states’ rights and local control.

        • Revisionist bullshit.

          Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3, Confederate Constitution: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government.”

          Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: “African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism.” Later in the same speech he said, “The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States.” Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller.

          Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: “There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery.” [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]

          Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: “The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery.” The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861)

          From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): “Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people–the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North.”

          Finally, there is the Cornerstone Speech:

          “Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”

          – Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens

        • if God wills that [the Civil War] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

        • Read more history.

          The South cried foul and wanted the Fed Gov. to defend their State’s rights. Slaves were walking away free from their masters when their masters visited the North. They wanted their slaves back.

          Don’t sugar coat this. It was a horrible thing that had ended in other “civilized” parts of the world. As soon as those who deny it, admit that all of our lifestyles, homeless to 1%ters, are elevated because of 300 years of free labor. Admit that it happened and we can all move on.

          All humans do some messed up stuff. Every color, every nationality, every religion and yes women to men and men to women. Read history. Want to know the truth. Face it and move on.

        • “States rights? Free trade? Nobody in their right mind was going to fight a war that killed 750,000 American for states rights and free trade.”

          No, but they will fight when a hostile, foreign power invades their land and threatens their homes. The war was started by the Yankees. The Southern people had every right to fight back against this invasion. It is a shame they lost, Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman should have been hanged for war crimes. At least Lincoln got what he deserved.

        • Your comment proves historicism or some sort of sociological justification of what you identify with. Have fun juggling your southern identity and trying not to fall in the trap of racism that love of antebellum can lead. Or you can recognize that the down fall of the south was not losing the civil war it was the refusal of the southern gentleman to turn his back on slavery.

          As for the question, the ignorant ass might have deserved a beating and he found one when he went looking. I am for free speech and against mob rule and mob attacks but this probably would be a case I’d walk a way from. Stupid asses can deal with the stupid consecenses of their ignorant rabid behavior with out my moral obligation to help them.

        • >> No, but they will fight when a hostile, foreign power invades their land and threatens their homes. The war was started by the Yankees. The Southern people had every right to fight back against this invasion.

          Ah, but it was not “their” land. Out of 9.5 million residents of CSA, 3.5 million were slaves, with no representation in the government, and in fact no civil rights whatsoever. And in some states – most notably, Mississippi and South Carolina – slaves actually were the majority. A state such as that has no legitimate sovereignty because it is not a legitimate system of government to begin with – it is built on oppression from the ground up. A defense of such a state against an invasion that is aimed at setting this right is a defense of oppression against freedom.

        • tell you what… i’ll make an effort to “understand history completely” when you start reading declarations of secession that specifically mention slavery.

          weird how pro-Confederacy revisionists complain about how the Civil War has been misrepresented while doing their outright best to misrepresent the Civil War.

        • Your claim about the minor “roll” (sic) that slavery played in the Civil War is a load of hogwash, plain and simple. The very Ordinances of Secession speak clearly to the reason that certain states turned traitor and sought to destroy the Union – to preserve slavery. Or did Texas, Virginia, and Alabama somehow end up in the Confederacy by mistake?

          TEXAS: “The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States…”

          VIRGINIA: “…the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States…”

          ALABAMA: “And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South…”

      • Are Arabs going to fly the ISIS flag 200 years from now and claim it’s about Arab pride? No, they will claim it is the religion of peace flag.

        • And then they’ll randomly throw select people from the roofs of tall buildings for celebratory reasons. You know, for community growth and tolerance.

    • And yet, the Hawaii state flag has an inset of the British Union Jack, our vanquished enemy and supporter of slavery the world over.

      Where are the rioters and violent mobs demanding it come down from poles across Honolulu? Where’s your outrage over that?

      Come to think of it, the U.S. flag flew over a slavery supporting country, too: the U.S.! Where’s the outrage?

      This is an assinine ginned up controversy to keep moronic, tribal-minded fools distracted from the reality of both their and their leaders’ failures. Nothing more.

        • Every slave ever brought to this country came on a ship that flew either the US flag or the Union Jack.

        • Slavery existed longer under the Union Jack and Old Glory than the Stars and Bars.

        • You are still missing the point. Yes, Union Jack and Stars and Stripes flew above slave ships. But it was not used only or predominantly in that context, and both states have emphatically repudiated slavery.

          OTOH, all CSA symbols represent a state whose sole existence was justified by the desire to preserve, maintain and expand slavery. They do not bring anything else to the picture (unlike, say, US flag, which also stands for the first true Republic of the modern world, and everything that entails). The idea that they represent some abstract “Southern Pride” or “Rebel Pride” that has no relation to slavery is absurd, because slavery was what made the difference in the first place; no more so than the notions of white supremacy and genocide can be divorced from a black swastika in a white circle on a red field.

        • int19h, it’s time for you to stop reading the drivel on wikipedia and actually take a college level history course on the Civil War. That means that you’ll have to read hard things, attempt to understand broader concepts than kiddie history, and come to grips with the facts of life. Don’t be a moron and post stupid comments about something you’ve no knowledge of. And no, I’m not pro-South, my great-great-grandfathers fought for the North and were both wounded, so don’t try to cop out with a faux response. Go read a real history book or two.

        • I’ve read the actual documents of the Founding Fathers of the CSA. You know, things like the Cornerstone Speech, or the declarations of secession of various states, or the biographies and citations of the people who designed all those flags. They all reinforce the same point: it was about slavery, plain as day, and they weren’t ashamed of it. Why should I trust some random guy on the Internet 150 years after the fact if I have it all down in writing directly from the people responsible?

        • Look, pal, you can claim to have read all sorts of original documents, but the problem lies in the fact that you haven’t understood them. If you had read them, you would know what they said. If you read up on the contextual history, you wouldn’t make uniformed comments. You’ve done neither. Don’t lie. Go do the hard work of actually studying the topic (even the parts that make you uncomfortable) before coming onto a forum like this one and spouting off. Those of us who *have* studied extensively can pick out posers like you a mile away.

        • I can read English. Can you?

          “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

          Pray tell, what have you “studied extensively”, exactly? Fox News talk shows? “Song of the South”, maybe? You haven’t given a single reference so far, not even in passing. All you do is blab about how everyone else is wrong. Talk is cheap. Go ahead, show your knowledge of the subject with something tangible; or don’t bother picking up a fight that you can’t win.

        • Fair enough. I have earned a bachelors and masters in history and a masters in journalism. I haven’t responded with random, unreferenced and cherry-picked quotes because you were doing such a terrible job of it yourself. There’s really no point in doing that because you wouldn’t understand my references if I did. Your average response to people who disagree with you is to discount them or ignore their points, or to attack them.

          If you’ll take a moment to notice: I went after your poor grasp of history, not your arguments.

          Your arguments are based on your grasp of history. You are making obvious errors in judgment of widely known historical facts. You are bringing in misappropriated data into your discussion of the Civil War. You are hinging the entire conflict on slavery when that was not remotely the entirety. You have set your bias and you are discounting any other perspective. This is no different than reading Shakespeare and declaring it to be all tragedies and no comedies. You have not grasped the material.

          The trouble with addressing the matter of the larger picture of you being uninformed and undereducated is that it simply obviates the need to address the particulars of your arguments. If you had actually studied the topic, you would have a broader understanding of the socioeconomic factors, the political backstory, the legal arguments, and the cultural components. You ignore all that, not because it isn’t relevant, but because you haven’t studied it. It’s obvious. It’s actually quite glaring.

          Go study history. Read those original sources, sure, but go get different opinions from different historians. You are not an expert. Take a big gulp, assuage your mortal ego with some hot chocolate with marshmallows, and go to the library.

          Here’s a quick tip: there are Northern leaning historians and Southern leaning historians. Read academic articles and books by both. I realize that will jar with your worldview, but your worldview is limited. This is your chance to grow out of it into a broader one. Come on. You can do this.

        • You’re trying to obfuscate the issue that’s really pretty simple. I’m well aware that Civil War has a long and complicated backstory, that there are economic reasons for the conflict, and so on. It doesn’t change one simple fact: the people in charge of CSA believed that they seceded because they wanted to own slaves. It’s a fact because they have said so, and have extensively documented it themselves. I have cited one piece of such documentation already, and other comments have numerous other citations. You have sidestepped and ignored them entirely, ranting about my lack of formal education instead of actually addressing the point at hand. I hope you realize how silly that actually looks. Dropping references to your perceived superior education is not really very interesting – we’re not in the dick-measuring diploma contest here. Your arguments are what matters, not your credentials. So far you have not actually presented any arguments, only personal attacks.

          So, to reiterate. It doesn’t matter what caused the Confederates to think the way they did in the context of the question we’re discussion, just as it doesn’t matter why Nazis wanted to kill Jews (even though there’s a complicated backstory there as well). Either way, slavers are slavers, and genocidal murderers are genocidal murderers, period. We judge them based on their beliefs and their actions in support of those beliefs, not on the history leading to them acquiring those beliefs. They have spoken about their beliefs quite extensively before and during the war, and everything they said centered on slavery. There’s no reason to seek for some ulterior motives or explanations when the criminal proudly declares his crime for all the world to hear.

        • Obviously, I’m not making this simple enough. Let’s try this:

          You don’t understand history because you haven’t studied it.
          Your statements repeatedly emphasize that you don’t understand history and you haven’t studied it.
          You are choosing to emphasize one element of causation for the entirety of the Civil War. This is really dumb.
          You are biased and unwilling to consider alternate viewpoints.
          You are upset because I won’t argue with you about your “salient” points.
          I’m not going to argue with you because you don’t have a decent grasp of the topic. It would be a waste of your time and mine.
          Your points aren’t worth arguing with because you are not being intellectually honest.
          In case you missed the first sentence: You don’t understand history because you haven’t studied it.
          You sound silly and it shows.
          Sometimes silly people with degrees in silly things like history try to help people who just don’t get it.
          Yes, I’ve been mocking you. It got your attention, right?
          Look, I mocked me too. Now pay attention.
          I’m trying to help you not sound silly.
          Get over yourself, you’re not an expert.
          We all know you are not an expert. Stop proving it.

          Got it? Now go to the library and start reading. You don’t need degrees to get an education, but you do need to sit your butt down and read and read and read. Choose to read things that make you uncomfortable from perspectives you disagree with. Challenge yourself to understand where people are coming from.

          I want you to sound educated. The only way that will happen is if you educate yourself.

          Have a lovely week. Avoid riots and don’t run with pointy objects.

        • Who said anything about causation? We’re talking about motivation here, not causation. I don’t care why you’re an asshole, for example – so long as you vehemently insist that you are, I’m treating you as such, regardless of your excuses.

    • I don’t see any relevance to any non-violent or non-threatening actions (in this case flying or burning a flag) prior to an act of aggression. Self-defense is much more clear cut, you can know that you are the good guy and didn’t start the conflict. Depending on local laws, defense of others is much less clear cut. If the guy getting beat up here started the fight and I did not see enough of the situation to know, then in many jurisdictions it would not be legal to use deadly force to protect him. Without a lot more knowledge of what was happening, I have to say no.

      Bottom line. In the exact situation as the video, NO! No idea if the guy I’m defending is innocent or aggressor and the scene is incredibly dynamic (when could you have even lined up a safe shot with so many people moving around in both the foreground and background).

      A lot of comments talk about defending the weak. The guy doesn’t appear weak to me and it appears that he successfully escapes in the video. Is South Carolina a duty to retreat state? If so, then legally you would be wrong to have used lethal force to protect him since he managed to successfully retreat.

      If there were a couple guys holding him down and others beating on him, that would definitely change the situation.

      Somewhere in the comments someone changes the situation to a small girl and that also obviously completely changes the assessment of the situation since it is extremely unlikely the girl could have posed a legitimate threat to the attackers, there would be an extreme disparity of force, and even if not held down the girl could not reasonably get away.

      • “completely changes the assessment of the situation since it is extremely unlikely the girl could have posed a legitimate threat to the attackers, there would be an extreme disparity of force,”

        You are fooling yourself if you don’t think these savages would have responded the same to a little girl with the Southern Cross in her arms.

        Disparity of force was reached by the time the second attacker had the thirst for blood. Then it becomes like a soup kitchen and you give everybody firsts, and dish out seconds if needed.

        Flying a flag is not a justification to allow a mob of savages to kill a man, at least not in a free country.

    • What if it was a black man instead of an Iranian burning an American flag? The flag of the USA presided over the institution of slavery in America far longer than any Confederate one.

      Also, let’s not be hypocritical when talking about the Confederate states victimizing people. ‘Free’ factory workers in the northern states were often victimized worse than slaves in the south. Factory workers then were considered disposable and were essentially free to replace. Many worked in factories and mills for a “dying wage”, meaning they burned more calories during their work day than they could replace with the food their wages would buy. They often got progressively weaker and sicker due to malnutrition until they could no longer work and were cast off by their employers. Early death from overwork and malnutrition was common. The northern workers of that day are said by some historians to have often faced the choice of fast starvation without employment, or slow starvation with it, and labored just for the comfort of some food in their belly, even if it wasn’t enough. Due to dangerous working conditions, they were often maimed or killed by machinery and accidents, which caused little problem for the factory barons who could just hire new workers from the destitute underclass.

      Slaves on the other hand, were expensive to replace and so were better cared for. Economic historian and scientist Robert Fogel , winner of the 1993 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, argued that the material conditions of slaves were better than those of free industrial workers. He said that while slaves’ living conditions were poor by modern standards, all workers during the first half of the 19th century were subject to hardship. He also stated that over the course of their lifetime, a typical slave field hand received about 90% of the income he produced, when non-monetary provisions are accounted for (housing, clothing, food, heating fuel for winter, medical help). In a survey after his published claims, 58% of economists agreed with Fogel’s proposition.

      This is not intended as an apology for the institution slavery by any means, but rather a reality check for those who buy into the myth of the righteousness of the northern states at that time. The fact is the north was even harder on much of it’s industrial labor force than the south was on it’s slaves.

      • “Slaves on the other hand, were expensive to replace and so were better cared for. ”

        if you’re not going to write “an apology for the institution slavery,” you should probably start by not making the “but but but the South was much better to slaves than the North was to workers” claim.

      • Yes, working in the factories in the North was so much worse than being a slave in the South… you know, except for the fact that your children were also stuck in chattel slavery for the rest of their lives and could be sold off on a whim, separating them from you forever, oh and your owner could basically decided to beat or rape you/your wife anytime they wanted and there was nothing you could do about it. Plus it was illegal for you to learn to read.

        But other than all that, sure slavery in the South was really nice.

        Do you even read what you write? Can you even say that kind of thing with a straight face?

        • An economic historian wrote it in a book and in peer-reviewed publications, and it was part of a body of work for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science. So yeah, I am pretty sure I can write it with a straight face.

        • If being materially better off is the only thing that matters, then you might consider moving to a prospering welfare state like Sweden rather than living in the USA. No matter what, slaves were denied the most crucial part that northern laborers did have: personal freedom. No slave ever had a choice other that submit or die.

        • int19h, did you know that there were white slaves in the South? Hmm. Didn’t think so. Pretty obvious from your uninformed comments.

      • An “economic historian” wrote a book? And got a Nobel Memorial Prize? Knowing that Krugman also has a Nobel in econ, and that a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama, I’m not sure that really is good support for your claim.

        Although it doesn’t really appear that his Prize was based on the idea that slavery was good for the slaves

        • Robert Fogel didn’t say slavery was good for slaves, and neither did I. You are opposing a straw man.

          I said “better cared for”, which is a relative term, meaning in comparison to the health, longevity, and material conditions of the industrial labor force of the north. The point was that as abhorrent as slavery was, the labor force in the north was even worse off in some ways. They were exploited as wage slaves rather than chattel slaves, and were seen as disposable to their bosses, rather than valuable assets to be protected and sustained.

        • It’s a bit disingenuous of you to say that you were saying that slaves were better cared for than workers for wages but that you weren’t saying that slavery was good for slaves. If you’re not saying that slaves were better off than free workers in the North, your whole point is meaningless. (Definitionally, it must be true that slaves were “better cared for” because free men aren’t “cared for.”) No free man, in those days, was cared for, no matter how rich he was.

          Thought experiment. In your opinion what percentage of slaves would have preferred to be a wage worker in the North, and what percentage of wage workers in the North would have preferred to be slaves? How close to 100% on the first, and 0% on the second will you come?

        • “It’s a bit disingenuous of you to say that you were saying that slaves were better cared for than workers for wages but that you weren’t saying that slavery was good for slaves.”

          No, it’s not. That is a reading comprehension problem on your part.

          If I write “Disease A is not as harmful as Disease B in terms of certain physical effects”, I am not saying Disease A is good for the infected. I am not saying anything other than precisely what I wrote.

          Clearly, both wage slavery in the industrial north and chattel slavery in the south were very bad for the workers. Both the Northern states and the Southern states tolerated widespread harmful exploitation of people as laborers. I’m not interested in debating semantics, so I am done with this topic.

        • Not interested in ‘debating’ semantics? So you really don’t care about the meanings of the words you use. Semantics deals with meanings, if you don’t use words in the same way that your readers/hearers do, you’re not communicating. Words mean things.

          If you don’t intend to say that slavery is better than being a free worker, don’t say so.

          I notice that you avoided the thought experiment, which isn’t surprising.

        • Before Freedom: 48 Oral Histories of Former North and South Carolina Slaves was a book that published interviews with former slaves after the war, collected by the Federal Writer’s Project in the 1930s. Of the forty eight interviews in the book, only two were openly hostile to their former masters, and some were neutral. The largest number of those interviewed had positive things to say about their former slave owners and slavery. Some excerpts of interviews from former slaves:

          “Before two years had passed after the surrender, there was two out of every three slaves who wished they was back with their marsters. The marsters’ kindness to the n—-r after the war is the cause of the n—-r having things today. There was a lot of love between marster and slave, and there is few of us that don’t love the white folks today. . .” “Slavery was better for us than things is now, in some cases. N—-rs then didn’t have no responsibility; just work, obey, and eat.” – Patsy Mitchner, age 84 when interviewed on July 2, 1937

          “Things sure better long time ago then they be now. I know it. Colored people never had no debt to pay in slavery time. Never hear tell about no colored people been put in jail before freedom. Had more to eat and more to wear then, and had good clothes all the time ’cause white folks furnish everything, everything. Had plenty peas, rice, hog meat, rabbit, fish, and such as that.” – Sylvia Cannon, age 85

          “My white folks were fine people. .[ ]. I haven’t anything to say against slavery. My old folks put my clothes on me when I was a boy. They gave me shoes and stockings and put them on me when I was a little boy. I loved them, and I can’t go against them in anything. There were things I did not like about slavery on some plantations, whupping and selling parents and children from each other, but I haven’t much to say. I was treated good.” -Simuel Riddick, age 95

          “I think slavery was a mighty good thing for Mother, Father, me and the other members of the family, and I cannot say anything but good for my old marster and missus, but I can only speak for those whose conditions I have known during slavery and since. For myself and them, I will say again, slavery was a mighty good thing.” – Mary Anderson, age 86

          ““That was a happy time, with happy days. . .[ ]. I’ll be satisfied to see my Savior that my old marster worshiped and my husband preach about. I wants to be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them and love them, and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time. That will be enough heaven for Adeline.” -Adeline Johnson, age 93

          “The rest of the family was all fine folks and good to me, but I loved Miss Ella better ’n anyone or anything else in the world. She was the best friend I ever had. If I ever wanted for anything, I just asked her and she give it to me or got it for me somehow. . .[];. I done lived to see three generations of my white folks come and go and they’re the finest folks on earth.” -LBetty Cofer, age 81

        • Who exactly are these slaves? Judging by some of the accounts, sounds like household servants mostly, not the guys who toiled on the plantations, who were treated like shit (and constituted the vast majority).

        • Stockholm syndrome is now a valid indication of reality? Ok, if that works for you.

          Arguably the people that wrote that book in the ’30s were looking for reasons to decide that slavery wasn’t all that bad.

  3. The short answer is no, nor would I be in close proximity to “protesters” of any stripe when “counter protesters” are also in close proximity. Or, as Grindstone so aply put it; “…stupid people, stupid things etc…”. I carry to protect myself and my family.

  4. In the world we live in, if these counter-protesters were ganging up and kicking a 6 year-old blond girl to death. Drawing your weapon to defend her would get you labeled, charged, and sued as a racist murderer.

    • Yeah, but there’d be a live 6 year old and a few less troublemakers in the world. In the words of Falco “I can live with that.”

      • Probably sadly true…. BUT, if it WAS a 6 year old child, that would completely change my calculus. Then I’m jumping in whether I have a gun or not, whether I get killed in the process or not.

    • The Good Samaritan did not arrive in time to intervene with the robbers, so he was not given the option of protecting the man (a Jew in this story) by violent efforts. The point of the story was that a man despised by the Jews (the equivalent of an Untouchable in India) was the only person who offered help to the injured Jew, and even paid for his accommodation so he could recover. You can never tell where help will come from, and can only hope that God will inspire some merciful bystander to offer needed help.

      On the other hand, this KKK scum deserved every blow he received in this nasty little incident.

      • “On the other hand, this KKK scum deserved every blow he received in this nasty little incident.”

        You do an excellent job talking about helping those who are not like you and then you jam a log in your eye.
        The very same thing could be said about the attackers who are also operating their bodies with hate in their heart.
        A man doesn’t deserve to be killed for having hate in his heart as was the lesson taught about the murderer Barabas. A man deserves to be killed when exercising that hate by physical violence, which flying a flag does not qualify as, but trying to murder a man exercising his 1st amendment should be an executable offense.

  5. Would I help him, I’d like to say I would but the answer would be no. Way too many to try and defend myself much less myself and another person that and the way they were swarming in one of the attackers could easily get behind you while you are concentrated on the ones on your other 3 sides. I would just have to back far away from the situation and call the police. That sounds like the cowards way out but I’m not getting my a** kicked or possibly killed when the odds are overwhelmingly against me. Plus my CCP only carries 7 shots.

    • Its not about cowardice or bravery. Its not abut defending the 1st Amendment as others have stated here. Its about being smart. Deploying your gun in this situation, against this many attackers, for someone you don’t know is simply not a good idea. I’m not going to risk my life or my liberty for a guy that is doing something was too stupid to even comment on. If you want to deploy your gun and shoot someone(s) who is unarmed all for a guy holding the Stars and Bars than please, be my guest. I’m sure your family and maybe his, will visit you in prison.

      • I don’t see a lot of people defending the first amendment rights of anybody shouting FIRE in a crowded theater.

        If you go asking for trouble, sometimes you’ll find it.

        • Except, you know, that ruling has been overturned. You CAN shout fire in a crowded theater. What you’re proposing is muzzling everyone who sits down for a movie.

        • I don’t see how I am proposing such a thing, but really, if you’ve been to a movie with a couple of idiots joking and laughing really loudly while you’re trying to enjoy a movie in peace then you’d advocate putting a muzzle on them.

          There’s a reason I’m building a HOME theater system, I love to avoid stupid people doing stupid things. It’s something to live by.

        • @chrispy-“I don’t see a lot of people defending the first amendment rights of anybody shouting FIRE in a crowded theater.”

          Hate speech and speech that people disagree with are exactly the forms of speech that need protecting the most. In order to combat hate speech the best tool is more speech not censorship. A person can choose to change his mind or stay the same and it is necessary to be provided with enough correct information to make that choice. Comparing and contrasting information, which is what speech is composed of is the process that allows us to gain intelligence and individuality.

    • Pure P.C. cop out. Sight of a defender with a gun, most would scatter. First shot from a defender with a fun, the rest would scatter.

      You’re just rationalizing letting a mob bash someone, because he’s a member of a despised minority. You’d have fit right in back in 1950s/1960s America, or under ISIS controlled territory today.

      • I hate to to see someone getting bashed for expressing thier 1A rights and am a proud southerner that supports our heritage. But I’m not jumping in a fight on the chance that they will back down when a force multiplier is presented. It wouldn’t take much in a crowd that size to overwhelm you and turn your own weapon against you. It’s selfish but I look out for my family and MYSELF first. But that fight isn’t one worth risking my life for.

  6. I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltiare

    As the son of a Jew that had to escape persecution in the middle east, I will go one better: I would draw to defend a convicted child molester with a swastika tattoo on his forehead while he screamed heil hitler at old Jewish immigrants during Rosh Hashanah.

    The first amendment is as ironclad as the second or any others. Do not ever forget it.

    • Finally some sense. I love how the POTG want tolerance, but are unwilling to give it. Do I agree with his choice? Nope. But, I’ll defend his right to be a stupid a$$ the same as I will defend my family.

    • BTW if you look at the comments on that video most of them are from black people calling out the attackers for what they really are: racist thugs. It’s less of a racial divide then people think.

      • +1. What people tend to overlook is that majority in any demographic are law abiding good people trying to get by. We all see thugs for what they are.

      • I read the comments, but I couldn’t tell who was black by them. The avs aren ‘t any help, either.

        Aside from anonymous, alleged blacks supposedly calling out this mob, has even one nationally prominent liberal black leader condemned this?

    • Thank you from a fellow Jew. Most of my family was wiped out in the Holocaust yet I will fight to the death for KKK’s right to fly swastikas.

      I grew up in the Soviet Union and I am scared to death of the vision liberals have for this country, for it brings up the memories of the good ole’ USSR. Scares me even more that some supposedly conservative gun-owning people are going right along.

      I am also continuously amazed by the unabashed hypocrisy of some gun owners. Demanding absolute and uninfringed 2nd Amendment rights while practically bursting with joy seeing someone physically brutalized for exercising their 1st Amendment rights. It pains me to no end to see what is happening to this country. How could anyone in their right mind condone physical violence in response to a perfectly legal activity???

    • Agreed. I hate with a passion everything that this man stands for, but no amount of hateful words can justify a physical assault. As a matter of principle, I would be obligated to intervene.

  7. To answer the question, yes.

    If you won’t protect the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution why would you expect anyone to protect the 2nd Amendment or the following Amendment’s?

  8. A) I would not defend anyone associated with the KKK. (But I would probably not have known that at the time).

    Regardless, my honest answer is still the same – I would in no way have drawn a gun in that situation regardless. Too many people/attackers. I would have escaped the scene and called the Po Po. Is that a bit sad/unfortunate? Perhaps (again, not knowing this person is KKK). But I have a responsibility to my family to stay alive and protect them and that comes first. Even if somehow in a similar situation (non KKK person), if you would have pulled a gun and saved a dude from getting beat (bad), you would then have massive legal implications to deal with – especially if you had to use said (legally owned and concealed) gun. The best means of self defense is avoiding dangerous/vulnerable situations – and I’m not sure the person being beaten upon did that himself, so why would I then make the same mistake. And this is coming from someone who has already made several sacrifices in life to help others and would gladly do the same again under the right conditions. But some false sense of being ‘hero’ in that situation has too many potential negative consequences to engage in. You wanted an honest answer, there it is. OH, and Eff the KKK! (Note: I do not see the Stars and Bars as simply a representation of racism/slavery and do not buy into the latest PC media meme in that regard however)

  9. I’m sure rammstein there knows what he’s doing. Big boy like him should receive the thing he’s asking for, if you ask me.

  10. Subject says: Group Of South Carolina Men BEAT UP A Man Carrying the CONFEDERATE FLAG . . . Then TAKE HIS FLAG From Him!!! (South Carolina Is ERUPTING . . . Into A RACE WAR)

    Which is exactly what Dylann Roof wanted. Congratulations.

    • He wanted whites to rise up and put the blacks ‘in their place’. It kinda looks like the opposite is happening.

      • Sir, thank you for that fine example of how white people continue being tolerant towards the disproportionate black on all violence that plagues our country. Whites are not the Jews of Germany and if pushed eventually they will say enough, which would be the end and a new beginning for this country. Important historical fact that cant be revised as it was written in blood is to remember the last time Americans who were white declared war upon a race it didn’t work out well for the Indians.

        All this lawlessness over an evil little bastard, and a person is not that intelligent if they think only roof wants a race war as evidenced by the medias and governments continued promotion of hate directed at Southerners and rednecks. Division of the people pays the bills for some institutional corporations and as the video showed it gets the ignorant masses riled up like an Orwellian weekly Hate.

  11. I’m pretty sure I would not have been there in the first place to even be faced with that decision. …Something about not being in stupid places around stupid people doing stupid things… this is not even considering the numbers of stupid people in the video.

    In over two decades of carrying, I have unholstered only once… and that was in defense of another. Small woman being attacked in the woods by a rather large man(I was fishing nearby). Worst experience of my life. hope it never happens again… but it did stop the guy(bigger than me) from beating her further.

    Its been years and I still cannot forget the sounds of her screams. Just the most horrible horrible sounds you can imagine, just all of a sudden. The screams you hear in the movies don’t compare to the real sounds that a person makes when they are being attacked for real.

  12. Freedom of speech means you’re free to yell the N-word or wave whatever flag you want. It doesn’t necessary free you from the consequences of that speech. We live in particularly racially charged times, and I’m sure this guy knew the risks when he decided to fly the flag in question.

    It’s worth remembering that men like him beat Vincent Chin to death, lynched Emmett Till, and murdered Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney.

    Better to call the cops and not get involved.

    • Good post (except for the last paragraph). I’m sure this guy considered that was he was doing was provocative and may result getting his ass kicked, but hey, go for it. If you get attacked by a mob then pull your gun and defend yourself, or not.

    • Um, no. Freedom of speech means freedom from being silenced or intimidated. If the cops stand by and let people get their asses beat for speaking that’s not freedom that’s mob rule. And what the hell does ‘guys like him’ even mean? This guy wasn’t even born when those events happened yet he deserves to carry the burden for those crimes? Do you even hear what you’re saying?

    • Well of course you’re not free from the consequences. That’s just a description of events, which is irrelevant to the matter of rights.

      You’re free to purchase the most expensive vehicle you can afford and to marry the most attractive woman who’ll have you, as well as to park on the side of the road in the ‘hood at midnight. Expect not to be free of those consequences!

      Nevertheless, while we’ll still prosecute those who inevitably attack you, you don’t forfeit your right to your body simply by expressing free speech. What the hell is wrong with you? Go along, get along, mob mentality monsters and their apologists are the ones who make fertile the soil for dictators and demolition of the rule of law. Standing on the safe side of the street is often on the wrong side of history.

    • >> Freedom of speech means you’re free to yell the N-word or wave whatever flag you want. It doesn’t necessary free you from the consequences of that speech.

      Let me reword that for you slightly.

      Freedom of speech means you’re free to shout “down with the tyrant”. It doesn’t necessarily free you from the consequences of that speech, such as spending the rest of your life in a gulag.

      Does that sound stupid? That’s because it is. But it’s exactly the same situation here. When “consequences” cross the line from a non-violent response (i.e. shouting back, or boycott / ostracism) into physical aggression, there is no longer freedom of speech, because you’re effectively threatening people to comply or else.

      • I agree, sorta. I see it somewhat differently. He has the freedom of speech, it’s just all those people beating him are guilty of assault and battery. They are criminals taking part in criminal activities as shown in the video. It is never “ok” to beat people down (any people, of any race) for expressing an opinion.

    • It’s worth remembering that men like him beat Vincent Chin to death, lynched Emmett Till, and murdered Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney.

      What do we actually know about this guy other than he was seen with a confederate battle flag? It’s extremely speculative to state “men like him” when we actually know nothing about him at all. It is actually fairly reasoned to state the opposite. Men like the men beating him are more closely resembling the people who killed Vincent Chin, etc, et al. All we know from the video is one guy was peacefully waving a flag and other guys were violently assaulting him.

      Read the comments from others at the source:

      https://www.facebook.com/mediatakeout/videos/1041120505919896/

      “If it were a group of whites beating on one black man, blacks would call them racist. Why shouldnt this group of blacks be classified as racist. Let him carry his flag. what ever happened to freedom of expression” – Rahim Castro

      “A flag is the LEAST of our problems. Wake up people. That flag shit is propaganda to keep us distracted from what’s in the works. The US government is our enemy, not a piece of cloth. Wise up” – Éti Porter

      “Man this is so damn stupid over a flag. My ex WHO IS WHITE has this flag tattooed on him and 80% of his homeboys is black and clearly he dates black women , some of Yall just look on Facebook and someone say the flag is racist now Yall want to act an a$s . Bet if dude shot they a$s in self defense he will be wrong and that’s when everyone screams BLACK LIVES MATTER” – Danielle Roberson

      Even the responses there were very reasoned.

      • The rally in question was jointly organized by the KKK and the National-Socialist Movement of America, and this was prominently advertised in advance. We don’t know for sure whether the guy is a member or a fan of either of those, but, practically speaking, it is safe to assume (would you go to a rally led by KKK and Nazis, and prominently featuring swastikas and such on the signs being carried?).

  13. the flag didnt cause that kid to kill those 9 people you idiot, hate comes from within, not a symbol, he was just a little to high strung

  14. as a Black man, yes. Yes I would. Just like I would if a redneck crowd took a liking to Black Panther protesting at a Klan rally. Violence is unnecessary

    • Well, you’re crazy Dirk – and you’re a better man than I.
      I hope your EDC is not a single stack 9

      • Why? Because cowards bashing a man while part of a mob will suddenly grow courageous enough to take the first bullet personally?

        I don’t think so.

        • LOFL. Hope you practiced your retention there, chieftan. You can test that theory out with your ass as the ante. Or you can just talk real big on the internet. I’m guessing it’s the latter. Pretty easy to call people cowards on a blog, aint it? Hahaha

        • @hickstick

          What Jonathan – Houston is saying is that some men have the moral constitution to die for what they believe in, or maybe that man took an Oath to the Constitution and was protecting an American citizen from a tyrannical mob. Tyranny= “an act or the pattern of harsh, cruel, and unfair control over other people” and it is not exclusive to government institutions.

          How appropriate you decided to call Jonathan a coward because this quote about being a good man is also from a John 15:13
          “Greater love has no man than this, that a man may lay down his life for his brother” and an innocent man in the process of being beaten to death by a pack of feral savages would make me right with my lord and I would die in a pile of brass defending him.

        • Lookie here, inapenny – I didn’t call anyone a coward. I was referring to Jonathon-Houston calling other people cowards in this thread for saying they wouldn’t go wading into that crowd of people with a gun to save a fleeing KKK guy. Maybe you should read his other comments. And spare me your moral high ground crap. I’ve been there, done that. I don’t need you preaching to me about that crap on a blog. Your dumb ass would have went rushing in to an angry crowd to save this knucklehead and he was in the car 5 seconds later speeding away, leaving your dumb ass standing there with your little pinky in your hand. Spare me your stupid shit please. If he wanted to do that fine – but calling other people “cowards” for not rushing in, is just p*ssy blog talk. That’s why I had to give him a piece of my mind. So run along now.

  15. the black panthers are idiots for making blacks look bad, the klan are idiots for pissing on my heritage, so screw them both, they are both commie/socialist asshats anyway

    • I’ve heard Klan being called a lot of things, but “socialist” was never one of them. Can you explain? Or are you just using it as a generalized slur devoid of any specific meaning?

  16. Yes had I been there I would have drawn to save the guy. However, I would have also taken the flag and burned it. But save him I would. As a responsible gun owner and a concealed carry holder, I would consider it my responsibility to do so.

    • And you would be wrong Frank. Police carry to protect others; we carry to protect ourselves. Question; who is going to protect your family when you are in prison for shooting an unarmed black man (men)?

      • The laws of most states recognize the use of deadly force in protection of others. Even where it isn’t, there’s still jury nullification.

        Courage and character, therefore, are codified in law. Cowardice and complicity, well, that’s just some people’s unwritten personal policy.

      • “Police carry to protect others; we carry to protect ourselves.”
        That is as delusional as your legal prediction of going to prison for defending an innocent person against a mob. The mob was in the commission of attempted murder, with special circumstances tacked on as it was clearly a black on white racially motivated hate crime. The double standard of race in the media would be blatantly obvious as it already is leading to the charges being thrown out or jury nullification.

        Cops don’t carry guns to protect WE citizens and I ‘m not a selfish vain prick who could allow another innocent person to be harmed if I have a tool to prevent it.
        Evil triumphs when good men do nothing, and indifference of your fellow man in harm is doing nothing.

  17. I’m from SC and thankfully about a 120 miles from that crap..The Black Panthers vs The KKK,or as i call it Losers vs Losers.They can beat the hell out of each other as far as i’m concerned

  18. A properly-considered threat/risk assessment would result in my not drawing a weapon in this environment where the mob rules the scene. A tear gas grenade would be the one item that could possibly distract the mob and allow the flag-waving idiot to make his escape, but I’m not in the habit of keeping one handy to address volatile group dynamics. At best, I’d try to record the events and be a good witness, although I’d have no sympathy for the flag-waiver even under the worst of brutal assaults because I believe in the Darwin school of survival and that guy failed miserably to consider the risks involved with his little demonstration.

    • Ditto that.

      One person with one firearm in such a volatile situation is not an appropriate application of force. In a mob situation, you need means for dealing with a mob.

    • Translation: my rah rah rah constitutionalism is just so much empty rhetoric when it comes to real life. I’ll take a powder and claim a halo for my smug inaction.

    • Err, the “survival of the fittest” is an idea that Darwin adopted to reinforce his other ideas on evolution (life emerging from primordial sludge, one form of life giving way to another as a form of racial progress), evidence of which is completely lacking. The limitations to his theories were well known at the time of publication. He even said that if “irreducible complexity” could be proven, his ideas would collapse. All life forms are replete with examples of irreducible complexity. And yet Darwin is still taught as the authority in schools. Science does not support the Theory of Evolution, which has become an item of faith in itself.

      Just having a small moan. Ignore me.

      • “Just having a small moan. Ignore me.”

        Sir, I would love to see you complain if it contains a fraction of the intelligent facts you just stated about Darwin. Many people like the original poster do not realize that Darwin was a Progressive Liberal just like our current breed. Darwin’s loss of faith in God was birthed from a wasp that lays its eggs in a beetle, where the larvae consume the beetle alive. Darwin said with that much cruelty surely a just God was not conceivable.

  19. Not with police sirens that sounded close. Not that I would think that help is near, but the end game of a melee with an individual pointing one’s pistol and john law showing up, kinda looks like a dead me.

    • Yeah. My thought when I heard the sirens was that if that sound didn’t disperse the crowd, I might possibly remain and offer any assistance to the officers, like protect their car while they dealt with the crowd, but that would be about it.

  20. Unless you are 150% sure who the “good” and “bad” guy is, I would say the best bet in any situation is to stay out of it and avoid taking sides. That is a pretty good rule regardless of who is beating up (or pointing a gun at) whom.

    The police are going to swoop in and arrest everyone, and let the judge sort it out -with the benefit of hindsight and information you may not have at the time. Besides, who knows if anyone else is armed? Getting involved in a melee is a good way to get shot, arrested, or worse.

    • A dozen street thugs bashing one lone man, and you need the mathemagician app to do that math for you and determine who’s in the wrong? Fail.

      • For all I know this was a terrorist attempting an attack and these 12 guys are preventing it. Assumptions will get you arrested or worse. Be 150% sure you are in the right before you break leather.

        • “For all I know”
          Any human being with an I.Q. higher than a rock would be able to ascertain the situation that was going on in the video. It was state sanctioned attempted murder and refreshingly it wasn’t carried out by the police. It was carried out by a different tax payer funded group that has immunity from prosecution.

  21. I’m a very tolerant person, so I would tolerate a Klansman toting the rebel flag, and I would tolerate the mob who was kicking his ass. In other words, I would let the parties work it out among themselves. And if they all killed each other, they would do so without any help from me, nor would I object.

    • A more interesting question for you, Ralph…

      What if KKK man was a concealed carrier and had fired at the gang pummeling him while he was curled up on the ground?

      Would KKK man have been charged? Would that have been a justified response to a violent attack?

      (For the record, as far as I’m concerned, it was a stupid move for KKK man to show up with that battle emblem.)

      • I’m pretty sure he would have been charged, given the overall climate. I very much doubt he’d be convicted.

        • “I very much doubt he’d be convicted.”

          Pretty much my guess.

          And the result of the ‘not guilty’ verdict would make the Ferguson riots look like amateur hour…

  22. I don’t know, man. He was kinda asking for it.

    People tend forget that the first amendment only protects you from the government, not people that will gladly kick your ass because they don’t like what you’re saying.

    • Yep. One is always responsible for the natural consequences on ones actions. We like to deny it, but we all know that if you wave a red flag in front of the bull you get the horns.

    • Wrong. Civil rights charges can be brought against individuals acting in their personal capacities, too. If that man were gay and that flag were the rainbow flag, this story would be an international outrage and the subject of a federal criminal investigation.

    • People tend forget that the first amendment only protects you from the government, not people that will gladly kick your ass because they don’t like what you’re saying.
      Glad to know you love howling mass mob rule.
      So who has the biggest and best armed mob gets to run society.

  23. In general I don’t think I would have necessarily intervened because I probably wouldn’t know the totality of circumstances. Maybe the white dude, unprovoked, just tried to stab a black dude and the crowd jumped in to subdue the white dude.

    Now, let’s say that I knew the white dude was “innocent” and the mob had descended on him unprovoked. I am not inclined to intervene when the white dude’s “speech” calls for the extermination of a demographic. Calling for the extinction of a demographic is not “free speech” in my book. It is open conspiracy to commit mass murder.

    Many of us advocate literally “tarring and feathering” politicians and bureaucrats who use their office to infringe our rights. In my world giving that dude (who was calling for the extermination of a certain demographic) a beat down was a variant of the same idea. Thus I would not intervene.

    Caveat: if it was tactically sensible, I would intervene for a person who was exercising free speech. And, just as I would not run out onto thin ice to try and save a person who just fell through thin ice, I would not run into a massive mob of people all by myself to save a person who was in the middle of a mob beat down.

  24. The Warrior Creed
    by Robert L. Humphrey
    (Marine Rifle Platoon Commander on Iwo Jima & Bujinkan 10th Dan)
    Wherever I go,
    everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.
    Wherever I am,
    anyone in need has a friend.
    Whenever I return home,
    everyone is happy I am there.

    Robert L. Humphrey
    1923 -1997

  25. If I were able to assist/defend that man, I would. To me, it’s just the right thing to do. Also, reading through the comments in the link was a breathe of fresh air. The vast majority of commenters (both black and white) are speaking out against the perpetrators who committed this assault.

  26. CA made my choice for me. As I cannot be legally armed I don’t have to make the decision to try and save stupid.

  27. The reason doesn’t matter nor does the person being attacked. If someone’s being attacked. Then I’m going to stand to defend them.

    Unless it’s someone like Dianne Feinstein. Screw statist trash like her.

  28. Yeah, well history is written by the victors. There is a tremendous amount of writings etc. that give an more accurate as to the causes leading up to the Civil War.
    This is a link to a simple and easy article to get a perspective differing that of watered down school curriculum.
    http://humanevents.com/2015/07/15/historical-ignorance/

    You think you know but you don’t.

    • I know of two organizations where those who want to leave are killed. One is the Mafia. The other is the Union.

    • I’ve actually read the documents that the men who seceded wrote to justify their decision to secede, as well as speeches that they gave. They universally said they were seceding in order to protect their right to buy and sell other people as if they were animals.

        • Yes, absolutely. Everything that results in a net increase of individual rights and freedoms is justified. This is exactly analogous to how you are justified in armed defense of someone being robbed or raped at a gunpoint. The attacker is a legitimate target not just for his victim, but for anyone else ready and willing to intercede on the victim’s behalf. Same goes for states, and for groups within states. An aggressive war against Nazi Germany would be justified even if they didn’t attack anyone, solely on the basis of their treatment of the Jews. Same thing here.

    • “There is a tremendous amount of writings etc. that give an more accurate as to the causes leading up to the Civil War.”

      yeah, you’re right… and it’s the states themselves documenting a need to keep slavery as the cause of why they were leaving.

  29. If I were surrounded by an anti-Confederate crowd I’d quickly recognize I was in the wrong place. Being outnumbered is very dangerous. If I could escape as the driver of a vehicle while brandishing a firearm and stuffing the guy taking a beating in the car, doing this very quickly I might consider protecting the man. It would make no sense for two people to be beaten to death.

  30. Tried to watch video and my laptop crashed!!! Anybody else??

    Anyway this should be a “Hate Crime” and no I would not be anywhere near this nonsense.

    While driving by the beach in Mississippi there were many there with em flying. I’m interested to see what happens with mississippi’s state flag.

    When a “Mob” in involved things tend to get out of hand real quick. Was there any “car flipping” and looting? If not I’m suprised.

    • If a gang of whites attacks a black or gay person for any reason or no reason, then and only then would it be deemed a hate crime.

  31. No one gets to beat people just because they disagree with them, period. Yes, I would help. I wasn’t there, so I’m not sure using a gun would be the best way, but I would help.

  32. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    On the other hand… This is exactly what the race-baiters wanted… I might go there just to defy their interests.

    Yeah, if that were the case and I were there, I’d have helped him. I’ve recently begun carrying my PT740 with 5 spare mags. If that crowd had turned on me, I could have handled almost all of them.

  33. There’s a whole lot of reservations where you would probably get your ass kicked for flying an American flag. It’s a flag of genocide to them. If the flag of the Army of Northern Virgina is that offensive to you, then every flag you see should make you cry in outrage. You don’t have a right to “not be offended.” This is exactly what the libturds want. A divided enemy is a weak one. Honestly I’m sick of hearing about people wine and cry about historical shit that didn’t happen to them. Wa wa wa, white people stole my land, white people stole my ancestors, black people steal my money, Mexicans take our jobs, the government is taking my rights, wa wa wa. Why don’t you stand up and do something about it?

  34. I see alot of ignorance displayed as hate on this post. i will not comment but to say it is EVERY AMERICANS DUTY TO DEFEND THE WEAK. NO MATTER THE SITUATION. LET THE LAW SORT IT OUT BUT STANDERS BY SHOULD ALWAYS STEP UP AND INTERVENE WHEN SOME ONE IS RECEIVING A BEATING .

  35. Naturally some take this chance to sling mud, call names… That man has the right to carry the confederate flag where he wants. And in this hypothetical… Yes you shouldn’t probably be where the KKK hangs out. And yes if you did you should probably run. But this string of questions displays what’s wrong with our culture of gun carrying ass hats. In this hypothetical posed, if you’re ass isn’t willing to draw down on these animals to protect an innocent man excersizing his rights as an American you shouldn’t be carrying a gun. 99% of you should turn your conceal permit in, and put your gun back in your safe. It’s our DUTY to carry. Which means it’s our duty to protect our fellow Americans. If you want to only protect yourself then stay at home you cowards

  36. As a former USAF SP, I was called more than once to save a protester from a counter protester. I didn’t like it, but it was the high road. See, no matter if you agree with the victims ideology, legally and sometime morally, you have to render aid, but your obligation can stop at calling 911. My angle on this kind of situation is simply that an EDC is not enough to handle an angry, violent crowd. I cannot conceal enough lethal and non-lethal tools to handle the situation. Also, if I have to use lethal force, I may spawn police officers in the area to shoot at shadows. In this situation, I would gather up my family, get them to safety, and call the police. Of course, if it were a member of my family, I would engage. If a known good guy, it depends on a lot of factors.

  37. Looks like the overwhelming answer to this question is no. “I carry a gun to protect myself and my family” bla bla bla. What a bunch of pussies.
    There are black men in this country that would step in, gun or no gun, to protect this white man.
    Let your country rot before your eyes. You deserve the leftovers. I can’t stand there and watch a mob kill a man no matter what that man did. That’s my America. I want no part of yours.

  38. So that there is no confusion let me start by saying that I am a black man who grew up in the Sixties (born in 1952) and have seen racism and intolerance in many forms. After viewing the video my thoughts were as follows. That was just plain stupid thug street mob mentality. Punks run up to get in their cheap shots and then scurry away like roaches when the lights come on. I am no fan of the Klan but twenty on one puts you on the same level. If anyone in the crowd had stepped in to try and protect this man would the Klansman appreciate the help from a black or just continue with his hatred. I do not know the answer but I can guarantee that he is more convinced now than ever that his opinion of blacks is justified. One on one I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire but I out of plain moral decency would be forced to come to his aid against a mob. My opinion. A black man in law enforcement for well over 25 years.

  39. I wouldn’t be there, but assuming I was..probably not.

    You’d think he’d know about this type of cultural enrichment and prepare accordingly. America’s inner cities are turning into Somalia. He should’ve been armed.

    Little Bill: “Well sir, you are a cowardly son of a bitch! You just shot an unarmed man!”

    Bill Munny: “Well he should have armed himself..”

  40. Getting past all the yankees and rebels re-fighting a terrible war, the practical answer is “no.”

    I would not be shooting in a mob like that because it is not likely to help the victim, and it’s likely the hooligans would attack me. One pistol against a dozen or dozens of mobbing thugs? Those are not a bunch of teenagers at a burger king. Those are fully grown men in the prime of their strength and hopped up on adrenaline. One person with a pistol will not be effective and is likely the next victim.

    Who would you shoot? Which is the guilty one? Did you see the entire episode and are you sure there was no provocation?

    Now, if I were there with three or four others that I knew were also armed, and I trusted them to fight with me, then that’s a different story. But that is almost impossible.

    The flag waver should have been armed. He started the commotion and should have been prepared.

  41. I’m another who wouldn’t be attending that particular event.

    Re: the CBF. A black man in Mississippi, Anthony Hervey, was just killed in a car wreck under suspicious circumstances. He was a longtime supporter of flying the confederate battle flag and was run off the road (according to his passenger) after leaving a rally in support of the flag.

    Another pro-CBF rally was just held in OK City by a black organizer. Believe it or not, folks, people my age grew up in an era where the flag really did just mean southern pride, Dukes of Hazzard, Lynerd Skynerd–fun stuff. We are not racists, and we’re sick of scolds banning everything.

    • “Believe it or not, folks, people my age grew up in an era where the flag really did just mean southern pride, Dukes of Hazzard, Lynerd Skynerd–fun stuff. We are not racists, and we’re sick of scolds banning everything.”

      *APPLAUSE*

    • I grew up in the NE and it was the same here – Lynyrd Skynyrd, Dukes of Hazzard, Southern Pride. No one up here thought otherwise really. (I have roots in Georgia). Slays me that now all of a sudden the media PC police deem it to be nothing more than a symbol of racism. I can imagine how much that must piss off my peeps in GA, who are also anything but racist.

  42. I took an oath to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. If I saw a mob denying anyone their right to free speech regardless of their color or creed I would help them. It would have to be a very unusual situation to allow anyone to be beaten down for exercising their right of free speech.

  43. Yes!
    In a democratic land, he has the right to believe what he wants, as long as he doesn’t harm anybody.
    Plus, a mob beating one person is such a shitty thing, that drawing to defend the one being beaten should be a MUST.
    Apart from that, I’m of the opinion that Lincoln’s war was about everything but slaves, and only roughly 5% of the southernerss owned slaves.
    But all this has nothing to do with the beating. That beating was a politically correct mass crime.
    Still a crime, in any place where law counts.
    I hope the perpetrators will be sued and judged accordingly!

    • The fact that after the South attacked Fort Sumter, the North’s motives had nothing to do with slavery, does not change the equally valid fact that the South seceded specifically to protect slavery. Secession was all about slavery. Read the documents, they were upset that the federal government wasn’t going to allow the spread of slavery to the territories (which ultimately meant that the political power of the South was waning), and not happy that the Fugitive Slave Law wasn’t energetically enforced.

      • Slavery was just a means to get the South’s economy on its knees.
        Lincoln was as racist as a man could possibly be, and didn’t care a bit about the black people.
        He just used that excuse for invading and conquering a legitimate Country.
        He even made concessions on slavery as he learned that things were going to go wrong.
        Slavery was already doomed, but needed some time for the southern system to adapt. A war as that one was was absolutely illogical and criminal.
        Also the repression and the violence against the population of the South was horrendous. As yet, no one can make a real estimate of the people killed by the “liberating armies”.
        The result was right at the end, but it was just a side-effect of something different that would not sound as heroic and just.
        And implied so much violence against the people, the properties and the principles of a Country that was starting to emerge as one of the world’s leading ones, that the Lie has to be kept upright with all means, even over 150 years after the facts. But now it should be time to at least stop the violence and start living together as one.
        If everybody keeps looking behind the shoulders, there will never be peace in America between blacks and whites.
        Most understand it, but still too many use these problems as an excuse for rioting and plundering whenever they feel like. And they always find someone defending them.

        • The South was not a legitimate country, they were in rebellion against the legitimate government. (Those that point out that the American Revolution was also ‘secession’ tend to forget that we only became a legitimate country by winning the Revolutionary War. If we’d have lost, the English would have hung all those we call patriots and suppressed the rest.) The South started the War by attacking Fort Sumter.

          The South seceded to protect slavery, to protect their “right” to buy and sell human beings as if they were animals.

          You conflate the motives of the North and the South, as if they had the same motive. Lincoln’s motive was to preserve the Union, and, as he said even before the first secession, he would have left the slave states alone, but he would have blocked the extension of slavery into the territories. Since that would have run the death knell for the South’s political power, they seceded so that they could compete for the western territories (and so that the upper class could maintain its power). There would have been war eventually as the two nations clashed over the rest of the continent.

          It is not those that recognize that the South seceded and started the War to protect slavery that are believing a lie. It is those that claim that it was about slavery for the North (until it became politically expedient to make it about slavery – give the English one more reason not to recognize the South) and not about slavery for the South that are believing and spreading a lie.

        • Love this discussion!
          Scot, somehow I can’t reply to your post, so I’m replying to mine.
          From what you write I can understand you do not think the Constitution ever allowed the secession of states, but there are also quite legitimate and well motivated differing opinions.
          I can only write about what I studied on books, without any other means of indirect info, as many Americans probably have, but my personal opinion is that the war was a violent attempt to prevent a part of the Union to compete with the North.
          There were no moral or other high motives, there was only the wish to eliminate any possible contender.
          From my limited knowledge, Federal States can seceed, and some decided to do so.
          Concerning the issue of slavery, they were depending on it, but that situation was doomed.
          They would not have lasted long.
          Another thing I learned is that there were also blacks owning white slaves, natives too, etcetera, so the problem was a lot more complex than usually (and quite dishonestly) always reposted to the general public.
          Event the situation of the freed blacks should be addressed: they fared a lot worse in the liberating States than they normally did in the South, obviously taking the extreme cases off the record.
          In the end, I see that war like an ancient version of what is going on now in Europe.
          Some nations have decided what’s right and what’s wrong, and are destroying the others. This time by means of economic weapons, but they’re still doing the same thing.
          Try to leave or refuse some decisions of the European Soviet Union, and you will see yourself pulverized by speculation, by the spread between your own national bonds and those of the Germans, your democratically elected premiers will be destroyed by means of a massive character assassination system, and so on.
          I still think the South was right with their claim for a weak central state. I am growing allergic to the simple concept ob Big Government, and I am convinced that some economic elites drove the country into that war, but it weren’t those of the South.
          Enough people made a lot of money and gained power in the Union to explain why that situation needed to be solved with arms.
          Also the attack aganinst Fort Sumter was looked for by the Union. they knew it would come, and baited the Southerners to it.
          Well, I have to go now, but I’d love to see your reply.
          Ciao!

        • I think that the software only allows ‘replies’ to a certain point. After that you have to reply to the higher post.

          I understand that there are people that believe that secession is permitted. There are also many people, equally bright and equally informed, who believe that it is not. The thing is, just because one side wants to break a compact/contract that doesn’t mean that the other side can’t attempt to enforce it. Under the Articles of Confederation secession was probably permitted, under the Constitution, not so much.

          When there are two opinions (not legal facts), as there are concerning secession, there is no inherent reason to accept one over the other.

          But, as Madison noted, secession without agreement of the other states, is effectively rebellion. Something that requires that the seceding states have the military power to enforce, they thought that they did, turns out they were wrong.

          Let me again note that it was the SOUTH that began the war by attacking Fort Sumter. Given the political climate of the day, my opinion (worth what you pay for it) is that there would have been no war at that time (probably later) if they hadn’t done so. There were strong views in the North to just let the South go. Sure, South Carolina would have had to put up with a Union fort in their harbor, and permitted it to be resupplied, but there was no way that the fort was a real threat to the Confederacy.

          It seems that they were not happy that the Union wasn’t negotiating with them. Which, of course, makes sense, because if the North had done so they would have been recognizing the legitimacy of the CSA. Impatience isn’t good.

          Let me also note that the CSA government was as much a centralized government as the government of the USA. They implemented a draft earlier than did the North. Those guys were not the libertarian heros that many today make them out to be.

          All the other stuff, strong versus weak central government (which if you look at the reasons why the Articles were replaced by the Constitution is pretty much a non-starter), is just window dressing.

        • There’s one thing to remember about secession: it (and sovereignty) are fundamentally collective rights. If you’re consistently pro-freedom and pro-liberty, collective rights only matter to the extent that they secure individual rights. In other words, a right of the people to secede and govern themselves depends on what exactly they plan to do with that governance. If they want to set up a republic that secures individual rights of all its citizens, at least to a greater extent than the state from which they’re seceding, then from the position of freedom and liberty, they’re in the right (this is the case with the American Revolution).

          But if they want to set up a tyranny of the majority, or worse yet, tyranny of the minority, and they’re seceding from a state that would prevent them from doing so, then from the position of freedom and liberty, they’re the wrong party. It’s not about their right to rule themselves; it’s about their right to rule others who did not consent to it, and who would be ruled in a tyrannical way.

          Given that over a third of CSA population were slaves, and that two Confederate states had more slaves than free, I think it’s pretty clear how this works out in this case.

        • Oh, and the South wasn’t opposed to big federal government. They just wanted to control it.

          One of their complaints, expressed in the secession documents, was that the Fugitive Slave Act (a federal law) wasn’t being enforced in some northern states. If they truly were for ‘state’s rights’ and not just interested in keeping slaves, they would have recognized the right of the northern states to not enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. They wanted a strong (big) federal government to force other states to send their slaves back, and to force slavery in the territories.

          If you read their documents, it is clear that they feared losing political power; and with that loss of power the loss of their ‘peculiar institution’

          Up thread there are several posts that quote the secession documents and other statements by prominent people in the South.

  44. As someone pointed out above, here we have a video of a stupid person, doing stupid things, in a stupid place, winning a stupid prize at the hands of a gang full of more stupid people… I wouldn’t have been there in the first place, so no I wouldn’t.

  45. So the new standard is that you are allowed to assault people whom you find offensive?
    Whatever happened to “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me”?

  46. Frankly, you wouldn’t find me in the vicinity. But would I draw to defend him? I don’t think I carry enough ammunition to provide him an adequate defense. But as the old saying goes ‘I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.’ Because doing less than that erodes our freedoms and our Constitution, which I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. And I’m embaressed to see the writings of so many veteran commenters here attacking the man for being foolish, the same way I was embaressed to see National Guardsmen wishing ill upon the dopey ‘war protesters’ in the run-up to Desert Storm. These people may be acting foolishly, but it ~is~ a free country and I have paid my dues to help keep it so.

  47. My take on actually watching the video, is that it was taken by a black person comfortable with being in that crowd. It was a fast moving event, the purpose of which seemed to be to drive that skinhead out of the area. I saw only minimal force being applied a few times to reinforce the stated desire for him to leave. There was no sustained assault, it was hit and run by many people, as they all seemed to want to show willing to participate. In fact, it looked like a collective expression of the will of the local people to remove an unwelcome intruder with only the force necessary to achieve that aim.

    I doubt any OFWG would have either been in the vicinity, or would have been able to maintain the pace necessary to keep up. I saw no need for armed protection, as the young idiot did not lose mobility and could easily move himself away from harm. Everyone concerned looked out of breath.

  48. Nahh… Sorry… All out of hero juice

    Besides you’d a of ran into the crowd brandishing your firearm like Captain America, and knucklehead would have jumped in the car and sped off 5 seconds later, leaving you standing there with your stack of dimes in your hand and a pissed off crowd of folks looking for someone to beat on. Good luck with all that, slappy.

  49. As a descendant of National GAR soldiers who were in the Federal Army of the Cumberland and the Federal Army of the Tennessee, I support people’s 1A rights to fly and carry Confederate flags even if I disagree with them.

  50. If I were in a position to do so, yes. Just like I would if the skin colors were reversed for another event.

    That being said, I would probably never even be at one of these protests in the first place. My first duty is preserve my ass, which means avoiding conflict if at all possible. So, here I am with a ten-foot pole. Nope. Not touchin’ it.

  51. If I know that there will be a large congregation of blacks in a certain area, I avoid it like the plague.

  52. Probably not. Maybe call the police, but that’s about it. I can’t tell if he’s KKK or not, and there are far too many people. Besides, if he really is/was KKK and was stupid enough to harass people in cars (how did he get all the way over there?) or wave the flag out there, he gets what he deserves.

    Proverbs 18:6 A fool’s lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.

    He should’ve asked himself if it’s worth it.

    Granted I’m not saying that violence against individuals is condoned, but I wouldn’t step in. I’d call the cops.

  53. I would only draw if myself or my family were in immediate danger and there were no other options. In this situation, I’d leave the immediate vicinity and call the police. I am not a hero in any way, shape, or form. If that makes me a selfish coward, then so be it.

  54. When one thinks about this for a moment, this is nothing more or less than a fractious argument between various groups in the Democratic Party.

    As such, I can’t be bothered, unless I get to shoot all of them.

      • It appears you didn’t read your cited article all that closely, and you further possess an ignorance of the rather large problems with a multivariate statistical analysis such as this when trying to “prove” one factor is causal.

        “Even the best statistical methodology in the world can’t control for all relevant factors, and it’s totally possible that McVeigh and his coauthors missed something that explains why Republican performance would be higher in county states without the Klan itself having an effect.

        I added the emphasis for your benefit.

        Further, here’s a tidbit from their study:

        “We also found that, in the latter two time spans, counties without a Klan organization but adjacent to a Klan county showed a significant increase in Republican voting compared to counties in category 1.”

        NB – they don’t show this analysis in their paper – it is just a footnote at the end.

        Category 1 counties were counties without a Klan organization in them, and were not adjacent to a county with a Klan organization in them. What they’re saying basically steps on their thesis: that the Klan is the determining factor for voting patterns at a county level. When counties without a Klan in them are also seen to vote GOP, they just lump in those counties with Klan-resident counties – for reasons that it makes their thesis look better, not because it is statistically valid.

        Their study is hilariously inept. Since this is ostensibly a pro-gun site, I’ll NB this: The authors of this study completely miss the rather large factor of the Democratic Party’s obsession with gun control as a large reason for the rural south turning Republican in national elections in the last 20 years. It has little, if anything to do with the Klan. I’ve looked at the voting data over the last 20+ years, and it shows one thing more consistently than anything else: When the Democrats open their yaps about gun control, they lose rural counties, rural congressional districts, rural states. Flat-out lose them. The counties in which they claim there are Klan organizations are rural counties.

        Eight years ago, a Democrat was in the governor’s mansion here in Wyoming – and he was pro-gun and pro-hunting.

        Today, he couldn’t get elected if he had Trump’s money behind him.

        The DNC has poisoned the well at the state and local level with Obama’s fixation on gun control. The same thing happened over the decades in the rural south, the one area of the nation more apt to own guns than any other.

        The authors of this study completely ignore that. They point to the Klan as the issue for the evolution away from the DNC, even when the “Klan” they’re pointing to is a half-dozen hicks meeting in the oil change bay of a service station.

        Here’s a little historical fact for you: In years past, the state where the Klan had the most influence wasn’t in the south. It was Indiana. The Klan at one time controlled over one-third of their state assembly’s seats. And it was almost exclusively Republican. In the north and west, the Klan was Republican. In the south, it was almost exclusively Democrat.

        • Of course the Klan used to be Democrat in southern states back when Southern Democrats were a thing. But they haven’t existed for several decades now, and the only party that has a strong racist wing today is GOP.

          I will repeat my offer: find me a single Klansman who today votes for anyone but Republicans. Then we’ll talk.

        • Look, int19h, you appear to be unaware of your own ineptitude at posting intelligent comments. The previous poster just enlightened you. Let me shorten it into smaller words so you’ll understand:

          You were not only thoroughly rebuffed by the prior poster with your very own pseudo-study, you don’t have the temerity to come back with an honest, practical response. You’ve proven throughout the comments listed here that you do not have a good education in history. You quite obviously are having difficulty grasping the differences between causation vs. correlation. Rather than engaging in a remotely honest cognitive process, you’re propping up straw man arguments that do not actually support anything you’re positing. The reason you’re doing this is because you simply do not know anything about anything… it’s pretty obvious. Go read some history books — the unabridged, from the library, heavy, lots-of-pages variety. Get a better handle on what actually happened in the world before you arrived. You can do it, little buddy.

        • The link that I’ve posted was, frankly, a very minor reference pointing out something that’s blatantly obvious, so debunking it, valid or not, doesn’t really change anything. It’s no secret that the racist sentiment today is confined primarily to the GOP to anyone who bothers to look, or knows even a little bit of the history of the Civil Rights Era and the immediate follow-up. It’s like arguing with someone who insists that Earth is flat… sure, you can, but in this day and age, the only reason to even bother is for laughs, because any person worth convincing already knows better.

  55. “The link that I’ve posted was, frankly, a very minor reference pointing out something that’s blatantly obvious, so debunking it, valid or not, doesn’t really change anything. It’s no secret that the racist sentiment today is confined primarily to the GOP to anyone who bothers to look, or knows even a little bit of the history of the Civil Rights Era and the immediate follow-up.”

    These sentences right here tell me all I need to know about your education and aptitude for historical understanding. You think you are justifying your position, but in actuality, you just undermined yourself.

    Again, you need to go educate yourself and wrestle with the historical record without superimposing your biases on the topic. At least try to do so, it will be worth it. You will be a better person, you will understand the world around you a little more clearly, and you won’t sound like a complete idiot when you attempt to discuss difficult topics like racism and the Civil War.

    The gauntlet has been cast. Grow some and get an education. You can do it. We’re all rooting for you.

    Have a nice day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *