• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Huff Post - Black Men Openly Carrying Guns in Holsters Will End Racial Profiling

Status
Not open for further replies.

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
It absolutley isn't clear that it wasn't a proper exercise of the 2A especially when you understand what the 2A is.

Is it absolutely clear that it isn't brandishing? Because that was the claim you made.

But let's be clear, of course it is clear what happened. Long guns in hand with exposed triggers, especially shaken over head, is brandishing. Go read the speeches. It was very much an act intended to intimidate government. And it backfired.

I understand perfectly what the 2nd amendment is. And I understand that a couple of you are here to provoke law abiding, civil, sane, rational gun owners to engage in illegal, unnecessary, immoral, counterproductive armed rebellion against the governments of the Several States and of the USA. Anyone who knew anything of the Declaration of Independence would know that we are no where close to where the men who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment would go anywhere near a war.

Those men kicked the question of the importation of slaves down the road almost 2 decades just to ratify the constitution and get all States to sign on. The great question of slavery itself was left unsettled for 80 years. They made several other compromises in the name of forming a functioning government. They put down the whiskey rebellion that sought to avoid all taxes and encroachment into supposedly personal matters by government. You don't go start an armed rebellion because things are moving slightly slower than you want them to, or because government doesn't perfectly reflect your view of how society should be ordered. We've got 300 million persons in this nation, each with ideas of how government should operate. Many of them are flat out wrong. Some would happily infringe your rights simply to enslave you. But a whole lot of them are decent, hardworking, honest and thoughtful people whose views on how to best order a functioning, stable, prosperous society that will protect their rights are every bit as worthy of consideration as are your own.

What is amazing to me is that the same tinfoil hat fools who claim the NSA is monitoring their every email and phone call, feel perfectly free to so frequently and openly encourage armed rebellion. Either you are agent provocateurs, or else you have so many internal inconsistencies in your world view that one might conclude your anger is caused more by your own mental dissonance than by any supposed injustices imposed on you by government.


sudden valley gunner said:
There you go blaming citizens for the erosion of rights by the state.

Pretty ironic coming from a guy who diminished the attrocities of the Soviets by claiming the US was responsible for killing millions of innocent persons during the cold war:

sudden valley gunner said:
What helped kill millions was the prolonged cold war, sanctions, and subterfuge of the western nations.

I'm still waiting for you citations to even attempt to back up that offensive claim.

That you are incapable of applying the same logic of "blowback" to illegal or highly offensive conduct in the name RKBA that is so often applied to various mistakes made while fighting a war, is your weakness to overcome.

And if you want to start a war, either be prepared to win it, or don't be surprised if the results are not pleasant for you. Shots over the bow are for ships. Saber rattling is for nations. Private citizens who screw around with overt threats of deadly force (as opposed to the implicit threat that is the ownership and peaceful possession of guns) against their government are fools. Keep your gun holstered until you need it, and then don't fire warning shots, and don't give criminal predators verbal warnings.

The Black Panthers' conduct confirmed the worst fears about them held by the majority. Not only was it arguably illegal. It was demonstrably politically, tactically, and strategically stupid. It did nothing to advance RKBA nor any other right. In fact, it set back the advancement of their civil rights by years, and of their RKBA in California by decades. And it wasn't just their RKBA, but the RKBA of every regular citizen of California. So yes, I'll blame them and their jack hatted move for generating the political will to grossly infringe RKBA. It wasn't just the politicians who voted to infringe RKBA in California, it was the vast majority of the State who supported them in doing so. That there were obvious, racist reasons for that support is a fact that should have been calculated, not an excuse that makes any material difference in whether the conduct was stupid and counter-productive, which it was.

Charles
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
"Brandishing" is a meaningless epithet without some sort of aggression. I'm willing to allow for a loose interpretation of "aggression" when something as serious as guns are involved (certainly anything tantamount to assault qualified, and egregious active endangerment, etc.).

But, regardless of its political advisability, there is nothing criminal about what the Black Panthers did, and so to label it as "brandishing" is, at best, question-begging.

As far as "intimidating the legislature" goes, tough. The 2A should intimidate a legislature who contemplates the sort of thing contemplated by that in Sacramento.

But, you're twisting the history anyway. The Black Panther protest was against an already-proposed bill to ban loaded OC, which was prompted by their citizen patrols successfully mitigating abuses by the OPD (as well as helping with general crime in their neighborhoods).

Really, it's no different from Texans carrying long guns in protest of the OC ban, or those idiots in Washington who carried guns into an assembly (or whatever that was). Strategically stupid, yes, but I find your insinuation of criminality to be more revealing of your internal biases than you likely intend.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The below is a site that has some photos of citizens guarding a business during a Ferguson riot. Cops did not interfere with them. In fact, a cop buddy of mind, a more senior officer, who was there the night those photos were taken, made sure to have officers not interfere with them as they were not violating any law.

http://conservativetribune.com/ferguson-owners-take-up-arms/

I clearly see proper firearms handling, where some may see brandishing.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
"Brandishing" is a meaningless epithet without some sort of aggression. I'm willing to allow for a loose interpretation of "aggression" when something as serious as guns are involved (certainly anything tantamount to assault qualified, and egregious active endangerment, etc.).

...

As far as "intimidating the legislature" goes, tough. The 2A should intimidate a legislature

So you'll accept a "loose interpretation of "aggression" " unless the aggression is toward members of the legislature?

Simple question, how would anyone react if half a dozen or more men carrying long guns and generally comporting themselves in the way the Black Panthers did in '67 were to come into your yard, back 40, or perhaps knock on your door?

Any sensible man would be reaching for his own self defense firearm and even summoning assistance.

Stop making excuses for inexcusable conduct.

But, regardless of its political advisability, there is nothing criminal about what the Black Panthers did, and so to label it as "brandishing" is, at best, question-begging.

Now whose begging the question?

In most States, using a gun to threaten or intimidate another is illegal except in self defense. You've as much as conceded that the Black Panthers were intending or attempting to intimidate the members of the legislature. A man doesn't surrender is right to be free from illegal threats or intimidation simply because he is elected to office.

The political results speak for themselves.

But, you're twisting the history anyway. The Black Panther protest was against an already-proposed bill to ban loaded OC, which was prompted by their citizen patrols successfully mitigating abuses by the OPD (as well as helping with general crime in their neighborhoods).

Show me where I twisted anything. Show me the quote or else have the integrity to withdraw this slanderous remark.

I never suggested the Black Panthers did not have legit grievances. But they were not facing imminent loss of life or limb and so overt threats with firearms are not permissible in a civil, polite society.

Really, it's no different from Texans carrying long guns in protest of the OC ban, or those idiots in Washington who carried guns into an assembly (or whatever that was). Strategically stupid, yes, but I find your insinuation of criminality to be more revealing of your internal biases than you likely intend.

What bias is that Marshaul? A bias against unjustified threats? A bias against incivility? A bias against the rank hypocrisy of those who quote Heinlein about being polite and then attempt to justify every act of incivility, impoliteness, boorishness, or provocative behavior based on the exercise of their rights? Politeness is going a bit beyond the minimum required to avoid jail.

I feel exactly the same way about the '67 even in Cali as I do about the recent, similar event in Washington. Both were stupid, those involved were (in your words) "morons". Both hurt RKBA. And I believe both crossed the line from merely rude into likely criminal based on the perception of supporters here that there was intent to use the guns to intimidate.

Now, if you want to accuse me of something beyond that, have the guts to do it openly or maintain the civility to stay away from innuendo.

For the record, I hold the Black Panthers and the New Black Panthers in the same contempt as I do the KKK, skin heads, ayrian nation, and other criminal thugs. I think all such groups are violent racists with no regard to the rights of others.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
The below is a site that has some photos of citizens guarding a business during a Ferguson riot. Cops did not interfere with them. In fact, a cop buddy of mind, a more senior officer, who was there the night those photos were taken, made sure to have officers not interfere with them as they were not violating any law.

And I should hope nobody here would need to have the difference between a defensive action and an offensive action explained to them. But the very fact you posted this here after I asserted that the '67 Black Panther incident was brandishing, suggests, sadly, that too many don't understand the difference.

So much for any regard for Heinlein's much abused quote.

Charles
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Is it absolutely clear that it isn't brandishing? Because that was the claim you made.

That's a lie cite were I claimed it wasn't brandishing?

But let's be clear, of course it is clear what happened. Long guns in hand with exposed triggers, especially shaken over head, is brandishing. Go read the speeches. It was very much an act intended to intimidate government. And it backfired.

Irrelavant to my statement.

I understand perfectly what the 2nd amendment is. And I understand that a couple of you are here to provoke law abiding, civil, sane, rational gun owners to engage in illegal, unnecessary, immoral, counterproductive armed rebellion against the governments of the Several States and of the USA.

Untrue statement. I am not here provoking anyone into any illegal or immoral.

Anyone who knew anything of the Declaration of Independence would know that we are no where close to where the men who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment would go anywhere near a war.

This has been discussed at length. Your claim here is simply false. The tyranny of todays governmnet is far greater than that of the British Americans.

Those men kicked the question of the importation of slaves down the road almost 2 decades just to ratify the constitution and get all States to sign on. The great question of slavery itself was left unsettled for 80 years. They made several other compromises in the name of forming a functioning government.

Nothing to do with my statement.

They put down the whiskey rebellion that sought to avoid all taxes and encroachment into supposedly personal matters by government.

Again irrelevant to my statement. Your lack of understanding of this "rebellion" that was put down is noted.

You don't go start an armed rebellion because things are moving slightly slower than you want them to, or because government doesn't perfectly reflect your view of how society should be ordered.

Another lame dishonest attempt to accuse me of something I am not saying.

We've got 300 million persons in this nation, each with ideas of how government should operate. Many of them are flat out wrong. Some would happily infringe your rights simply to enslave you. But a whole lot of them are decent, hardworking, honest and thoughtful people whose views on how to best order a functioning, stable, prosperous society that will protect their rights are every bit as worthy of consideration as are your own.

Again nothing to do with my statement. Here's an idea how about the only function of government is to protect natural law and rights? Definitely something you are not advocating.

What is amazing to me is that the same tinfoil hat fools who claim the NSA is monitoring their every email and phone call, feel perfectly free to so frequently and openly encourage armed rebellion.Either you are agent provocateurs, or else you have so many internal inconsistencies in your world view that one might conclude your anger is caused more by your own mental dissonance than by any supposed injustices imposed on you by government.

So now you have brought your lies to a full ad hominem attack instead of actually countering the statement. Apparently discussing what ought to be is tin foil hat and advocating for armed rebellion. Do you believe this ***** or do you make it up as you go?

Pretty ironic coming from a guy who diminished the attrocities of the Soviets by claiming the US was responsible for killing millions of innocent persons during the cold war:

Another lie. I never diminished the atrocities of the Soviets, yet condemned them. Also a lie that I said US was solely responsible.

I'm still waiting for you citations to even attempt to back up that offensive claim.

I'm not sorry you find it offensive. Jingoist would.

That you are incapable of applying the same logic of "blowback" to illegal or highly offensive conduct in the name RKBA that is so often applied to various mistakes made while fighting a war, is your weakness to overcome.

Finally a point. I am not incapable of applying "blowback" to political moves by the state in response to citizens. It's still not the citizens fault for the infringement of the right anymore than a claim that a victim of rape deserved the rape because of how they dressed or acted.

Please cite were there was a declaration of war?

And if you want to start a war, either be prepared to win it, or don't be surprised if the results are not pleasant for you. Shots over the bow are for ships. Saber rattling is for nations. Private citizens who screw around with overt threats of deadly force (as opposed to the implicit threat that is the ownership and peaceful possession of guns) against their government are fools. Keep your gun holstered until you need it, and then don't fire warning shots, and don't give criminal predators verbal warnings.

Sigh, who is wanting to start a war? Again discussing what is going to happen if the state don't check itself is not the same as advocating for that action. Not a hard concept to grasp, no matter how despicable that discussion is to loyalist.

The Black Panthers' conduct confirmed the worst fears about them held by the majority. Not only was it arguably illegal. It was demonstrably politically, tactically, and strategically stupid. It did nothing to advance RKBA nor any other right. In fact, it set back the advancement of their civil rights by years, and of their RKBA in California by decades. And it wasn't just their RKBA, but the RKBA of every regular citizen of California. So yes, I'll blame them and their jack hatted move for generating the political will to grossly infringe RKBA. It wasn't just the politicians who voted to infringe RKBA in California, it was the vast majority of the State who supported them in doing so. That there were obvious, racist reasons for that support is a fact that should have been calculated, not an excuse that makes any material difference in whether the conduct was stupid and counter-productive, which it was.


This should have been the only sentence in reply since it is really the only one that actually addresses my statement.

I simply disagree. The enumeration of a right implies the right to use that right. The act also was an exercise of free expression and speech.

I blame the statist who blame the acts of individuals (whether they be stupid or not, illegal or not) for the agression and erosion of rights by the state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
"Brandishing" is a meaningless epithet without some sort of aggression. I'm willing to allow for a loose interpretation of "aggression" when something as serious as guns are involved (certainly anything tantamount to assault qualified, and egregious active endangerment, etc.).

But, regardless of its political advisability, there is nothing criminal about what the Black Panthers did, and so to label it as "brandishing" is, at best, question-begging.

As far as "intimidating the legislature" goes, tough. The 2A should intimidate a legislature who contemplates the sort of thing contemplated by that in Sacramento.

But, you're twisting the history anyway. The Black Panther protest was against an already-proposed bill to ban loaded OC, which was prompted by their citizen patrols successfully mitigating abuses by the OPD (as well as helping with general crime in their neighborhoods).

Really, it's no different from Texans carrying long guns in protest of the OC ban, or those idiots in Washington who carried guns into an assembly (or whatever that was). Strategically stupid, yes, but I find your insinuation of criminality to be more revealing of your internal biases than you likely intend.

+1

The 2A is an implied threat to government. Too bad it isn't working.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The below is a site that has some photos of citizens guarding a business during a Ferguson riot. Cops did not interfere with them. In fact, a cop buddy of mind, a more senior officer, who was there the night those photos were taken, made sure to have officers not interfere with them as they were not violating any law.

http://conservativetribune.com/ferguson-owners-take-up-arms/

I clearly see proper firearms handling, where some may see brandishing.

+1
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
So you'll accept a "loose interpretation of "aggression" " unless the aggression is toward members of the legislature?

No, what the Black Panthers did wouldn't constitute "brandishing" anywhere.

Yet again, Charles, I'm absolutely certain you're capable of differentiating what are clearly separate arguments on my part. Every time you wilfully misrepresent what I say, the discussion is over.

Like right now.

For the record, there were no overt threats against the legislature. That's your twisting of history. The bill was passed, and the Black Panthers no longer OCed. What the Black Panthers did was, as I said, no different from long gun OC protests in Texas or Washington.

Except the Black Panthers were black, so it's OK to lie and pretend they were "overtly threatening" people, just as you did. The photos speak for themselves.

But, as I said, if dudes with long guns is implicitly threatening to a legislature, tough.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
No, what the Black Panthers did wouldn't constitute "brandishing" anywhere.

That is your opinion. I believe that what occurred in '67 and what occurred recently in Washington State both qualify as brandishing, especially given that you and others on this very forum have as conceded that there was intent to intimindate and that government should be intimidated by the 2nd amendment.

Yet again, Charles, I'm absolutely certain you're capable of differentiating what are clearly separate arguments on my part. Every time you wilfully misrepresent what I say, the discussion is over.

Like right now.

I am fully capable of differentiating. What annoys you is when I bring together a couple of your supposedly different arguments and show the internal inconsistency. Nothing is more maddening to a libertarian than to be confronted with obvious evidence of their own, internal inconsistency.

So you have no choice but to feign offense and withdraw. Such is your right.

Except the Black Panthers were black, so it's OK to lie and pretend they were "overtly threatening" people, just as you did. The photos speak for themselves.

Are you accusing me of racist motives or actions? That is slanderous and offensive. Back it up or withdraw it.

My reaction to Cali and Washington is identical. The races of those involved are quite obviously different. You have no evidence whatsoever on which to allege racism. Your use of it is an offensive and ugly tactic to try to shut down discussion. It won't work. I will simply call you out for small minded, ugly, unsubstantiated slander.

But, as I said, if dudes with long guns is implicitly threatening to a legislature, tough.

Widespread ownership of guns is implicitly a check on government power. Walking into a legislative hearing with guns in hand is not implicit in either '67 Cali or '14/'15 Washington crosses the line into overt threats.

Since you chose to ignore it last time, I'll ask again:

"Simple question, how would anyone react if half a dozen or more men (without regard to race) carrying long guns and generally comporting themselves in the way the Black Panthers did in '67 were to come into your yard, back 40, or perhaps knock on your door?"

I'll take another dodge on this question as an implicit acknowledgement that an honest answer would expose another inconsistency between what you claim was or wasn't directed to the legislature and how you (a presumably "reasonable man") would react to a similar show of arms directed toward yourself.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Do you believe this shite or do you make it up as you go?

Nice violation of the rules against profanity. I guess the rules don't apply to you.

That's a lie cite were I claimed it wasn't brandishing?

Post 40, this thread:

"It absolutley isn't clear that it wasn't a proper exercise of the 2A especially when you understand what the 2A is."

Or perhaps the bottom of the post to which I'm responding:

"The enumeration of a right implies the right to use that right. The act also was an exercise of free expression and speech."


Are you now going to try to back away from these statements as anything other than a defense of the Panthers' gun handling in the '67 legislature as something other than brandishing?

Directly to the point, do you believe the Panthers' were brandishing or weren't they? Don't be so childish as to accuse me of lying if I've accurately presented your position. If you do think the Panthers' were brandishing, then say so clearly.


Untrue statement. I am not here provoking anyone into any illegal or immoral.

Because you don't think armed rebellion against a government as tyrannical as you think our government is would be either illegal or immoral. Right?

This has been discussed at length. Your claim here is simply false. The tyranny of todays governmnet is far greater than that of the British Americans.

Your claim is false on the key element you refuse to acknowledge: Today's government is still demonstrably influenced by our votes. It still represents us, however imperfectly. The tipping point for the founding fathers was not a tax over rate X, or on item Y. The tipping point was when they were denied all representation in the passage of laws.

I have repeatedly demonstrated how voting and other peaceful political activism has made dramatic improvements in our RKBA over the last 25 years. You refuse to acknowledge that.


Nothing to do with my statement.

Again irrelevant to my statement. Your lack of understanding of this "rebellion" that was put down is noted.

Very relevant if one is going to claim our government is so oppressive that the founding fathers would justify armed rebellion. In a host of ways our government has never been more respecting of our rights than it is today. Your eurocentric view of the world is entirely discounting how blacks and AmerIndians were treated by the government. 85 years of slavery and 100 years before civil rights legislation, but you think high taxes and a war you don't like justify armed rebellion. Woe is you.


Another lie. I never diminished the atrocities of the Soviets, yet condemned them. Also a lie that I said US was solely responsible.

Of course you did. I pointed out how bad the soviets were, I pointed out what we were fighting and you responded with
"What killed millions of people was the" US actions during the cold war. Thankfully for you, the mods have killed the entire thread where you made such an asinine claim. But you've never backed away from it, nor provided citations to back it up.

In context, you were blaming the US while diminishing the evil nature of the godless soviets.

I'm not sorry you find it offensive. Jingoist would.

So you stand by your ugly claim that the US was responsible for "millions of deaths" of innocents during the cold war, but you refuse, yet again to provide any citations to back up your ugly claim? Color me not shocked that mindless provocateurs would do both. It isn't just "Jingoists" that find such lies and mis-direction offensive. All honest men do.

Please cite were there was a declaration of war?

Only someone so grossly immature in and ignorant of actual constitutional powers would even make such a statement. Show me where a declaration of war is required for congress to properly authorize the use of military force. I've got about 200 years of precedence to demonstrate that congress can properly authorize use of force without a declaration of war.

I blame the statist who blame the acts of individuals (whether they be stupid or not, illegal or not) for the agression and erosion of rights by the state.

Behind every stupid rule is some stupid fool. Cross all lines of civility, decorum, and decency, and your fellows will demand a law. Welcome to reality. Call them whatever silly names you want. Civil people simply are not going to long tolerate people intimidating them or their legislators with threats of violence. We can be polite, or we can suffer the political blowback.

Charles
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Are you accusing me of racist motives or actions? That is slanderous and offensive. Back it up or withdraw it.

I don't know what your motivations are. But it's clear that the societal/legislative reaction to the Black Panthers was indeed partly based on race, and it's also certain that others who have made the claims you're making about the '67 protest do possess racist motivations.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
.



Post 40, this thread:

"It absolutley isn't clear that it wasn't a proper exercise of the 2A especially when you understand what the 2A is."

Or perhaps the bottom of the post to which I'm responding:

"The enumeration of a right implies the right to use that right. The act also was an exercise of free expression and speech."

Thank you for quoting again tell me where I claimed it wasn't brandishing in any of those words? You lied again.


Are you now going to try to back away from these statements as anything other than a defense of the Panthers' gun handling in the '67 legislature as something other than brandishing?

Directly to the point, do you believe the Panthers' were brandishing or weren't they? Don't be so childish as to accuse me of lying if I've accurately presented your position. If you do think the Panthers' were brandishing, then say so clearly.

I made a clear statement, they were exercising their constitutional rights. Your insertion of the term brandishing is irrelevant.


Because you don't think armed rebellion against a government as tyrannical as you think our government is would be either illegal or immoral. Right?

My thoughts on it being illegal or immoral is not relevant and does not equate to advocating armed rebellion. Your lies are duly noted.

Your claim is false on the key element you refuse to acknowledge: Today's government is still demonstrably influenced by our votes. It still represents us, however imperfectly. The tipping point for the founding fathers was not a tax over rate X, or on item Y. The tipping point was when they were denied all representation in the passage of laws.

I have repeatedly demonstrated how voting and other peaceful political activism has made dramatic improvements in our RKBA over the last 25 years. You refuse to acknowledge that.

LOL that is your tipping point. Read the DOI. The list of tyrannies are there and todays government has gone well beyond it. It didn't happen to do with our lowly votes. The new government didn't allow everyone to vote either.


Very relevant if one is going to claim our government is so oppressive that the founding fathers would justify armed rebellion. In a host of ways our government has never been more respecting of our rights than it is today. Your eurocentric view of the world is entirely discounting how blacks and AmerIndians were treated by the government. 85 years of slavery and 100 years before civil rights legislation, but you think high taxes and a war you don't like justify armed rebellion. Woe is you.

LOL Eurocentric view????LOL.....hahahahahahaha. Screw you I know very well the injustice your beloved government has done to my native ancestors. That is irrelevant to my point. Great job at oversimplifying what my view point is and what justifies armed rebellion.

Of course you did. I pointed out how bad the soviets were, I pointed out what we were fighting and you responded with
"What killed millions of people was the" US actions during the cold war. Thankfully for you, the mods have killed the entire thread where you made such an asinine claim. But you've never backed away from it, nor provided citations to back it up.

More lies. Both about what I said, who it was too. No pointing out the bad actions of B in a matter does not demean the bad actions of A.


In context, you were blaming the US while diminishing the evil nature of the godless soviets.

In context I was pointing out the West wasn't blameless. You like usual come to a false conclusion.

So you stand by your ugly claim that the US was responsible for "millions of deaths" of innocents during the cold war, but you refuse, yet again to provide any citations to back up your ugly claim? Color me not shocked that mindless provocateurs would do both. It isn't just "Jingoists" that find such lies and mis-direction offensive. All honest men do.

You admit "mistakes" were made yet somehow excuse responsibility for those mistakes. No cites were needed you tied your own rope.

Only someone so grossly immature in and ignorant of actual constitutional powers would even make such a statement. Show me where a declaration of war is required for congress to properly authorize the use of military force. I've got about 200 years of precedence to demonstrate that congress can properly authorize use of force without a declaration of war.

Court cases are not "constitutional" precedents are not "constitutional" seems to me the constitution makes it clear who declares a war.



Behind every stupid rule is some stupid fool. Cross all lines of civility, decorum, and decency, and your fellows will demand a law. Welcome to reality. Call them whatever silly names you want. Civil people simply are not going to long tolerate people intimidating them or their legislators with threats of violence. We can be polite, or we can suffer the political blowback.

So you blame the victims for the acts of the agressor.
 

MarkS

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
27
Location
Colorado
Black People with Guns

What I find interesting/ironic is that when black people bear arms -- like the Black Panthers or Malcom X or Huey Newton or virtually any other black firebrand, it is viewed as dangerous and maybe brandishing and threatening to the public order to such a degree as to justify legislative and law enforcement action. According to Wikipedia, the Black Panther Party was originally named the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.

Black men with guns are scary. White men with guns are law-abiding NRA members, sportsmen, patriots and individuals exercising their right to self defense. We're still not a color-blind country even after the civil rights movement of the 60s.

The US Supreme Court recognized the use of government to oppress in its reasoning in McDonald and Heller that discussed at length how state and local governments disarmed blacks during the Reconstruction era and committed various atrocities enabled by blacks' inability to defend themselves against authority. IMHO, the Supreme Court's historical observations are really what the 2nd Amendment is all about and what the founding fathers intended -- ensuring that citizens have the right and ability to defend themselves against government oppression/coercion initially rooted in the founding fathers' experience of oppression by the British government.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
What I find interesting/ironic is that when black people bear arms -- like the Black Panthers or Malcom X or Huey Newton or virtually any other black firebrand, it is viewed as dangerous and maybe brandishing and threatening to the public order to such a degree as to justify legislative and law enforcement action. According to Wikipedia, the Black Panther Party was originally named the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.

Black men with guns are scary. White men with guns are law-abiding NRA members, sportsmen, patriots and individuals exercising their right to self defense. We're still not a color-blind country even after the civil rights movement of the 60s.

The US Supreme Court recognized the use of government to oppress in its reasoning in McDonald and Heller that discussed at length how state and local governments disarmed blacks during the Reconstruction era and committed various atrocities enabled by blacks' inability to defend themselves against authority. IMHO, the Supreme Court's historical observations are really what the 2nd Amendment is all about and what the founding fathers intended -- ensuring that citizens have the right and ability to defend themselves against government oppression/coercion initially rooted in the founding fathers' experience of oppression by the British government.

+1 The 2A is an implied threat. I really wish more people of all backgrounds would openly carry.

To go along with your thought, I found it heartwarming and encouraging to see people grab their arms and flock to Nevada to defend and protest against government overreach, yet discouraging that they don't flock to protest against the overreach when it happens to be black folks protesting.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Black Open Carry: Why Gun Rights and Civil Rights Need Each Other

[video=youtube;vsGEAQ7gAiI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsGEAQ7gAiI[/video]

"We are proposing armed self-defense as it relates to the situation with black people here in America when it comes to dealing with police departments," says Charles Goodson, founder of the Huey P. Newton gun club, an open carry group based in Dallas.

Reason TV attended a meeting of the gun club and spoke to Goodson and others about their goals and how they hope to accomplish them. And historian Thaddeus Russell talked about the long, intertwined history of the gun rights and civil rights movements, from slave revolts to Reconstruction-era resistance to the Klan to the Black Panthers.

"One of the great untold stories about the civil rights movement was that it required violent resistance from blacks to be effective," says Russell.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
[video=youtube;vsGEAQ7gAiI]--snipped--
"One of the great untold stories about the civil rights movement was that it required violent resistance from blacks to be effective," says Russell.
That is not the OCDO way:

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
That is not the OCDO way:

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Not my words, and I am certainly not advocating violence. You know me better than that. The article is interesting and it is open carry related. Civil disobedience is a part of our history.

ETA we should be welcoming the black community to our fold, not pushing them away. Want non violence then support non violence, and be willing to step up for those who are most abused, BY VIOLENCE.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Plus just what do you think the second amendment means? Without the threat of violence to secure a free state the second means NOTHING! The founders made it quite clear what they intended. You cannot separate the first phrase of the 2A from the second phrase.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
That is not the OCDO way:

(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Did you watch the video? They're talking about self-defense. Which is, you know, violent resistance to prior acts of violence. The unfortunate reality is that, throughout much of American history, many blacks have found themselves in positions necessitating self-defense against those acting under color of law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top