The new president of the NRA is utterly delusional here:
“They’re not activists—this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America. You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things—even there you didn’t have this kind of thing.” ( http://www.newsweek.com/nra-oliver-north-parkland-terrorists-919989 )
North here is so factually wrong as to require me to strain to hold in my head just how many things have gone awry with his train of thought.
For starters, the NRA has seen only peaceful protests against them. To contrast that with the brutality of previous civil rights struggles, especially the Jim Crow era which endured bombings, murders, beatings, and more against — at worst — internet shaming and media blitzes alongside peaceful protests — and then find that actual bombings comes up short defies all sense. It’s literally topsy-turvy. It’s offensive in how entitled this almost entirely white US crowd manages to decide they’re the real victims because kids who have been shot at decide to protest against weapons and then to have this almost entirely white crowd decide that, despite the fact that they’re the ones with the weapons, the pain of being protested against is greater than, for instance, having your house of worship bombed.
Then let’s get around to calling it a civil rights struggle. The recasting of the second amendment in recent decades as a right for anyone to have unregulated access to weaponry is, first of all, a novel interpretation and, second of all, access to weaponry is not morally equivalent to stating one has a right to peacefully exist alongside other citizens and be treated equally by government and private organizations as other citizens. Weapons are… weapons. That tautology seems to have evaded North, here. Weapons are a tool one uses to injure, possibly kill, something living. I struggle to even say to what degree the line between people without weapons upset at this subset of people with weapons who wish to cast themselves as the armed underclass against the majority unarmed is somehow not parallel to civil rights but perpendicular to it, perhaps because they’re not even in the same coordinate system.
Let’s get even more clear on this, though: The second amendment was used and understood at the time to support the use of hunting packs to track escaped slaves. That’s a good part of the “well regulated militia” language, in context. To have North try to say the NRA is even more aggrieved than people of color in the US and under even stronger attack than, specifically, an era of civil rights struggle by African Americans is not merely dangerously delusional but overwhelmingly racist when looked at in historical context and so arrogantly so, so full of hubris, that one struggles to even pull everything it is into words. It’s an American White Avalanche of panicked entitlement.