MLK & Guns

I'd posted a link on FB about Obama's recent EO banning importation of AKs.  As always, E.W. argued that it doesn't affect the average American, and I made the argument that gun rights are civil rights, and not caring just because it doesn't affect you is like a white person in the '60s saying they don't care about black voting rights, etc.

One of E.W.'s friends posted:

"I was much more afraid in Montgomery when I had a gun in my house. When I decided that I couldn't keep a gun, I came face-to-face with the question of death and I dealt with it. From that point on, I no longer needed a gun nor have I been afraid. Had we become distracted by the question of my safety we would have lost the moral offensive and sunk to the level of our oppressors." --Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (From his writings, compiled by Clayborne Carson) [source]

To which I replied:

T.F.: MLK did undergo something of a transformation in the late '50s to the early '60s, completely adopting the notion of non-violent protest. This was part of the power of his message; if he were all about an eye-for-an-eye, then it'd be too easy for his antagonists to provoke a confrontation to solidify support against him. I think he was trying to avoid the Middle East syndrome, where they've been trading blows for centuries. And indeed, the Black Panthers' blatant display of weapons freaked out the timid whites and arguably precipitated California's draconian gun laws and contributed to the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Dr. King also, in response to activists trying to get him to join sit-ins in the early '60s, said, "I think I should choose the time and place of my Golgatha"--with the implication seemingly that he realized that he was at some point going to be killed for his work. That he did it anyway was heroic. (Further, it's not clear that those around Dr. King didn't keep their weapons for his defense--I couldn't find good sources on that after his conversion to non-violence.)

However, this is non-violence to affect political change, and it seems like Dr. King had an idea where it was going to lead. In his 1967 book, he wrote:

"Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration." (Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?)

The point he was making, as I interpret it, is that he wasn't against self-defense or guns; rather, he advised that when marching for political purposes, the potential for a protest to devolve when arms are present overshadows the potential advantages. Of course, the risk is that one will be defenseless, and the personal choice one must make--which Dr. King made--was whether to put the cause or one's self-preservation first. I believe that the quote that you put forth doesn't contradict that interpretation.

In those same papers, Dr. King said he only owned one gun in '56; however, some of his advisers noted that there were firearms all over the house. This would imply that perhaps Dr. King distanced himself from the image of firearms ownership, but his crew didn't necessarily.

Other related pieces:
When MLK gave up his guns [Salon]
Civil Rights Leader and Gun-Owner MLK [Guns.com]
The Secret History of Guns [The Atlantic]