Larry Ward, chairman of “Gun Appreciation Day (GAD)” and president of Political Media, Inc., raised eyebrows — and debate — today with a controversial statement he made about firearms and slavery. Arguing that guns are essential to preserving Americans’ freedom and liberty, Ward said on CNN that, had African Americans been armed, the institution of human servitude might not color the nation’s past. TheBlaze spoke with the advocate following the segment to clarify his remarks.
“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,” he proclaimed in the CNN interview. “And I believe wholeheartedly that it’s essential to liberty.”
His on-air opponent, Maria Roach of United for Change USA, immediately called his claim “ridiculous,” going on to subsequently dismiss Ward’s GAD efforts.
Watch the exchange, below:
A longer version of the clip can be viewed here:
In a phone interview with TheBlaze, when asked to clarify his comments, Ward explained his reasoning in detail.
“The point — and I think it’s a pretty simple one — is that well-armed citizenry are essential to liberty and without a well-armed people, the government or a group of tyrants can enslave them,” said the GAD leader.
Liberal blog ThinkProgress voiced its angst over the comments in a post earlier in the day on Friday:
When confronted with the fact that Gun Appreciation Day coincides with the celebration of civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr, who was assassinated with a gun, Ward insisted that his event “honors the legacy of Dr. King.” Ward didn’t stop there; he argued that if African slaves had been armed, they would have been able to prevent slavery from ever happening [...]
Maria Roach of United for Change USA pointed out that many people were outraged over the attempted co-opting of MLK Day, calling it a “power play.” Martin Luther King, Jr. a strict disciple of peaceful resistance, was shot by an assassin in 1968. The Gun Control Act of 1968, the nation’s first comprehensive federal firearms regulation, was passed in response to King’s assassination, as well as the murders of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Malcolm X.
Ward also neglects to mention that in fact there were many armed uprisings by slaves, as early as 1526. Armed revolts almost always failed, and often led to retribution by the slave owners, who had the justice system on their side. Most famously, Nat Turner led a rebellion that resulted in 60 white deaths and 100 black deaths. The state later executed 56 blacks accused of being involved in the insurrection, and white mobs beat and killed at least 200 others in revenge.
When asked to respond to anyone who may be put off by his statements, Ward said that he felt he didn’t say anything offensive.
“I think that slavery was a black mark on this country and it’s — we fixed it — we got rid of it,” he continued. “[But] there’s no harm in looking back and saying, ‘Well, why did that happen?’ I believe one of the reasons why African Americans were enslaved is because they didn’t have the right to fight back.”
While ThinkProgress makes the claim that revolts were attempted and failed, Ward notes that African Americans were not permitted to own guns, with the latter fact, in his view, impacting their ability to seek adequate justice and protection for themselves.
What do you think? Did Ward make a valid point — or no? Let us know in the comments section below.
–
Related:





















































































































Comments (145)
RamonPreston
Jan. 11, 2013 at 6:12pm********! We bought the slaves from other blacks in Africa. They were prisoners of war. The Walmart of Africa didn’t have them in stock. What does guns have to do with it?
Report this comment
thegreatcarnac
Jan. 11, 2013 at 5:54pmWait….if blacks had guns and prevented themselves from being sold into slavery in the first place, what on earth would America do with all that money we now spend feeding them, housing them, rebuilding after their riots, jailing them after criminal acts, and all the police we need to watch them?????
Report this comment
jackofiron
Jan. 11, 2013 at 5:28pmI hate to say it, but Americans did not enslave the Africans. The Africans were enslaved by other Africans and sold as servants and laborers. The Americans merely bought the ‘cutting edge, self aware labor equipment’ of the day.
We don’t yell at farmers for working and caring for their Tractors…
Don’t get me started on this whole love affair with Africa and unity! Blacks (now and then) didn’t want to go back to the “home land” because there is now and then a multitude of conflicting forces fighting and killing each other for great and small causes. Africa is no more united and one big happy country than Europe – think Britain/France/Germany/Spain; or the inter-warring Indian tribes of America.
Back to the article at hand, having the means of self preservation at any time and age, will help you from being taken advantage of. So while he is technically correct on the guns, I call foul on the American slavery portion of the argument. The guns hopefully would help them not become enslaved at home in their beloved Africa
(or A-Frica, as I say when playing Risk…)
Report this comment
THX-1138
Jan. 11, 2013 at 5:24pmWhat if Lincolin had had the guts to arm the Southern Slaves instead of the Northern Army?
He could have avoided ordering the deaths of 600,000 Americans.
Yankees wouldn’t look like such idiots these days.
And, best of all, there would be a real reason for “Black Pride” and I suspect their culture would be much more healthy in the present day.
Just sayin’…
Report this comment
1FreeVoice
Jan. 11, 2013 at 4:15pmLack of historical knowledge obvious. The African blacks had been enslaving each other back and forth in tribal rivalries for many generations before white men showed up. Many of the blacks enslaved by them were caught by coastal blacks capturing blacks from further inland, selling them to the whites and with the former owners removed ( unable to be rescued during the next reprisal raid), they encroached on lands previously held by others. Later, of course they were targeted by whites themselves after having eliminated potential allies. Guns in the hands of blacks would not have changed this dynamic.
Study up.
Report this comment
BehindTheMouth
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:59pmHer response was like a deer in the headlights of a car. Priceless!!!!!!!!!
Report this comment
Lloyd Drako
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:48pmWho is this idiot? “I believe one of the reasons why African Americans were enslaved is because they didn’t have the right to fight back.” No, they lacked the right to fight back because they were slaves.
Report this comment
coyote1hell
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:44pmThey lived in dirt holes, covered with sticks, threw sharpened branches…guns…far fetched…
Report this comment
thegreatcarnac
Jan. 11, 2013 at 6:43pmIf they had guns they would put them on the end of a long stick and throw them.
Report this comment
shakedowncrews
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:35pmIt’s obvious that if slaves had been armed they would have threateened the safety of their masters. So she is full of CRAP. and that’s why the white racists fought so hard to keep them diarmed even after the end of slavery.
Report this comment
OUTLAW_WEALTH
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:32pmGuess who murdered JFK? The CIA. IT was a successful coup.
Look for the book “Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace”
And why was a CIA operative the editor in chief of the Washingon Post during the JFK era? Makes you think the CIA is up to no good, ya think?
Report this comment
LemonCreek
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:21pmThats is correct. And if the Jews had guns there would have been no Holocaust !!!!
Report this comment
Mapache
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:20pmSlavery still exists albeit in much more subtle forms. Trafficking is alive and well and throughout the world people are subjected to slavery…..and none of them have guns.
Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:19pmJust a reminder that slavery was put here by slave SELLERS and traders. The U.S. had absoluely NOTHING to do with it. It was already here 100s of years before the U.S. was. The U.S. is innocent regarsing slavery. The U.S. abolished it despite Democrats trying tooth and nail to keep it.
Simple truths……
Report this comment
Chet Hempstead
Jan. 11, 2013 at 10:31pmOnly countries that never bought, imported or used slaves are innocent regarding slavery. Saying the U.S. is innocent is like shooting your wife and then telling the cops that you are innocent because the gun you used was invented over a hundred years ago in another state. And that’s not how you spell Gandhi.
Report this comment
LemonCreek
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:18pmThats right. and if the Jews had guns there would have been no Holocaust !!
Report this comment
hauschild
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:18pmI think one could also make the argument that slavery is pretty much a willful thing, or at least something some people would put up with (in exchange for certain securities like food, water, housing. Sound familiar???). It is happening at this very moment as millions of people each year give up liberty for perceived security.
It all comes back to individual motivation. If you want something badly enough, and you’re willing to work hard enough, you’re gonna get it.
Report this comment
Bubba-Guido
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:17pmThe Nat Turner revolt came very close to ending slavery in the South. Only 5% of whites and 12% of free blacks owned slaves. A poor man’s fear of he and his family being murdered in their sleep by their rich neighbor’s property was very real. The poor man gained nothing from slavery.
The system of slavery came under great debate in Virginia the most important slave state in the country after the revolt. If it ended there, it would certainly have ended in the rest of the South.
The problem was there weren’t enough slave revolts. A couple more Nat turner’s might very well have ended slavery 30 years before the Civil War.
Slavery was an economic system. Revolts were hard on profits
Report this comment
The-Monk
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:16pmPosting/replying to page one (only) looks fixed now…. : )
Anyone else still having problems on “page one only”?
Report this comment
Bubba-Guido
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:12pmThe Nat Turner revolt came very close to ending slavery in the South. Only 5% of whites and 12% of free blacks owned slaves. A poor man’s fear of he and his family being murdered in their sleep by their rich neighbor’s property was very real. The poor man gained nothing from slavery.
The system of slavery came under great debate in Virginia, the most important slave state in the country. If it ended there, it would certainly have ended in the rest of the South.
The problem was there wasn’t enough slave revolts. A couple more Nat turner’s might very well have ended slavery 30 years before the Civil War.
Slavery was an economic system. If it was no longer profitable, it would wither and die. Slave revolts were not very conducive to making money.
Report this comment
mlimberg
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:02pmHow dare this man raise a reasonably suggestion that would have changed the course of history! After all, if it wasn’t for slavery, we would not have people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson shouting off about the subject… They’d had nothing to complain about.
Report this comment
mrunner
Jan. 11, 2013 at 3:01pmRoach mentioned that “armed uprisings of slaves almost always failed”, Neglecting Ward’s point that slavery may not have happened in the first place had the individuals been armed. Furthermore- once enslaved because they were unable to defend themselves- in the Nat Turner case the firearms were captured from the first whites they attacked and were not substantially used in subsequent attacks during the rebellion out of fear that the sound of the shots would alert others.
Report this comment
paperpushermj
Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:48pmClearly Ms Roach does not understand what was said about an armed community preserving its freedom from the barrel of a gun.
Report this comment
BHOHG2G
Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:39pmThe only reason Africans were chosen to be slaves was because they were not armed in the first place IN Africa. Not their fault for not having the technology.
I’ll bet that when a slave ship dropped anchor and men came ashore that if the locals had been able to open fire on them, the white men would’ve hauled azz out of there.
It’s the law of the jungle so to speak. Every predator preys on the weak and defenceless.
Report this comment
Daniel4
Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:30pmWhy don’t we ask a knowledgable party in this debate? Let’s ask the darlings of the Obama//Holder DOJ, The New Black Panther Party, what they think about this.
Report this comment
Metallicat
Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:27pmGun appreciation day was not chosen to defecate on MLK day. it was in response to Diane Fartstains proposed assault weapons ban. that date was chosen to send a message from gun owners days before she releases her proposed gun grab scheme.
Report this comment
BellaMia7
Jan. 11, 2013 at 2:23pmThe goal of conquering armies and tribes was often to enslave the captured. People fought because they didn’t want to be enslaved and conquered. Obviously. To suggest that a few uprising failed when they were obviously under-armed, under-supplied, and under-organized, does not negate that fact that had people who were enslaved had sufficiently powerful weapons, they would not have remained enslaved for hundreds of years. HUNDREDS of years….guns surely could have made some difference.
Report this comment