Jan Morgan is the owner of the Gun Cave, an indoor gun range in Hot Springs, Arkansas; she also describes herself on her website as “a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative… Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian, and other Conservative based organizations nationally”.
In 2014, she made news for declaring that she wanted her business to be a “Muslim Free Zone”. In that article, she wrote that her reasons for instituting a blanket discrimination policy against any patron of Islamic faith are that: 1) “The Koran… contains 109 verses commanding hate, murder and terror against all human beings who refuse to submit or convert to Islam”; 2) Morgan alleges she has received death threats from unnamed Muslims for linking Qur’an passages; and 3) terrorist extremists such as ISIS and Al Qaeda include Muslim members.
Oh, and the cincher? Apparently, two men who both owned cellphones walked into her store this one time while simultaneously texting, speaking amongst themselves in non-English, and having a ringtone set to “allah akbar” (sic).
These men were clearly terrorists out to commit dastardly acts of badness in Hot Springs, Arkansas.
“The truth is I think Martin Luther King would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history.” — Larry Ward, gun rights advocate
He’s not wrong, actually. Slavery might not have gone so well if slavers had kidnapped Africans and stolen them from their homes and families, shipped them across the ocean in chains and deplorable conditions, and then promptly handed them a rifle the minute they were taken off the boats. Further, firearms were a means whereby slaves revolted against slavery. Slaves who gained access to arms often participated in frequent (but rarely taught) uprisings throughout the South. But, unfortunately, these uprisings were isolated incidents that rarely resulted in anything more than painful retribution against unfreed slaves and/or kin, indicating that access to firearms and resulting violence was not alone sufficient to end the -institution- of slavery.
Let’s also examine for instance the notion that Martin Luther King, Jr. in particular would support arming slaves to revolt or protest against slavery. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy was non-violent protest — the notion of returning violence with non-violence as a form of civil protest.
King once said of the non-violence movement: “Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars… Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
In the end, however, the whole suggestion is absurd because we are talking about a time when slaves were bought and sold as property; when slaves were considered sub-human and incapable of complex thought by nature; when it was illegal to teach a slave to read. The hypothetical wherein slaves might have been granted the right to bear arms since this country’s founding — and in so doing “stop slavery” — is so far removed from the historical context of slavery and how it came about that it becomes patently absurdist.