Mention the name Martin Luther King, Jr. online in connection with nonviolence or reasonable gun-control measures, and soon enough, you’ll be reminded of how ignorant you are and that, in fact, King applied for a license to carry a firearm and was denied one, but obviously supported concealed carry and any other form of armed resistance that your troll cares to attribute to him.
As always, this incident from King’s life is taken out of context and is grossly misrepresented. Here’s what happened.
On the evening of January 30, 1956, Martin Luther King’s house was bombed in Montgomery, Alabama. King was at a meeting at the time, but his wife, Coretta, and his infant daughter, Yolanda (not three months old), were home. Because they were in the back of the house at the time of the explosion, they miraculously escaped injury. When King heard the news, he rushed home to find a group of angry and armed African-Americans vowing revenge. His response to them was unequivocal and clear:
If you have weapons, take them home. If you do not have them, please do not seek them. We cannot solve this problem through violence. We must meet violence with non-violence. Love your enemies; bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.
Still, King’s advisors were concerned, and they urged him to consider the matter of self-defense. The threats against King’s life from the white racists in the area were constant, violent, and often specific. And the bombing gave King pause. Finally, at the urging of his colleagues, he applied for a license to carry a gun in his car. Of course, his application was denied.
But then King had one of the most important realizations of his life. In Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story, King describes it:
Meanwhile I reconsidered. How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? Coretta and I talked the matter over for several days and finally agreed that arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned. (131)
King refused to arm himself, even in the most dire circumstances.
So King would not have supported the American gun lobby, sponsored by the NRA, that dominates the current gun-discussion with intimidation and fear-mongering; and your troll's attempt to recruit King to the gun lobby's camp is fatuous and a sign either of desperation or ignorance.
Probably both; they often travel side-by-side.
King meant what he said: violence is not the way.