So, I'm putting this as it's own thread instead of in the political thread because this topic encompasses more than just the actual RNC event - it also covers rallies leading up to it.
The New Black Panther Party, a "black power" movement, will carry firearms for self-defense during rallies in Cleveland ahead of next week's Republican convention, if allowed under Ohio law, the group's chairman said.
The plan by the group this weekend comes as police in Cleveland brace for an influx of groups that plan demonstrations before and during the presidential nominating convention.
During the attack last week in Dallas that killed five police officers, law enforcement officials said demonstrators carrying rifles led them to initially believe they were under attack by multiple shooters.
Several other groups, including some supporters of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said they will carry weapons in Cleveland.
"If it is an open state to carry, we will exercise our second amendment rights because there are other groups threatening to be there that are threatening to do harm to us," Hashim Nzinga, chairman of the New Black Panther Party, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"If that state allows us to bear arms, the Panthers and the others who can legally bear arms will bear arms."
Nzinga said he condemned the Dallas shootings.
Officials in Ohio have said it will be legal for protesters to carry weapons at demonstrations outside the convention under that state’s "open carry" law, which allows civilians to carry guns in public.
"Black power" groups promote defense against racial oppression, with some advocating for the establishment of armed self-defense groups, black social institutions and a self-sufficient economy.
The New Black Panther Party has long called for a separate black nation. But Nzinga said the movement was now focused on protecting black Americans' rights.
Academics say the New Black Panther Party remains marginal and largely representative of an older generation, in their 30s and 40s, rather than younger activists drawn to groups such as the anti-racism Black Lives Matter movement.
The New Black Panther Party was founded in 1989 and adopted a more radical approach than the 1960s Black Panther Party. Members of the original group have denounced the New Black Panther Party as racist, but Nzinga says his movement includes original Black Panthers.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate group watchdog, describes the New Black Panther Party as “a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."
RELATED VIDEO
Video
Cleveland police chief: Prepared for open-carry at RNC
The center tracks years of public statements by the New Black Panther Party and other groups. Nzinga denied the group was racist but said it was a fact that Jews control Hollywood and the U.S. media.
The center said the group is not known to have carried out any violent attacks. The black shooter in the Dallas killings "liked" the New Black Panthers and other black nationalist groups on Facebook but was not a member.
"THERE TO PROTECT"
Nzinga said he expected “a couple hundred” members of the New Black Panther Party to participate in and protect a black unity rally -- the "National Convention of the Oppressed" -- that is scheduled to begin in Cleveland on Thursday evening and end on Monday morning. Nzinga said he and the Panthers plan to leave Cleveland on Sunday, the day before the convention officially opens.
“We are there to protect ... We are not trying to do anything else,” he said. "We are going to carry out some of these great legal rights we have -- to assemble, to protest and (to exercise) freedom of speech.”
Nzinga says his group has grown amid racial tensions in the wake of a series of high-profile police killings of black men in the past two years. The Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of black militant chapters around the country grew from 113 in 2014 to 180 in 2015.
The center says there are 892 hate groups total nationwide. It says white hate groups, such as the Aryan Brotherhood, have a much longer track record of carrying out violent attacks than black nationalist groups.
Nzinga said his group has 36 chapters nationwide but declined to reveal membership numbers.
“I have people literally calling me saying this is the first time in my life I protested and I loved it.” Nzinga told Reuters. "They want to be a part of something. They tried to be a part of the system and the system let them down so they want to be part of a rebellion.”
(Reporting By Ned Parker; additional reporting by Daniel Trotta; editing by Stuart Grudgings.; Editing by David Rohde and Stuart Grudgings)
It will be interesting to see if the supporters of open carry extend this to the New Black Panthers - after all, the NRA was OK with open carry right up until the (original) Black Panthers started doing it. But, as we have heard ad nauseum, an armed society is a polite society, yes?
I personally wouldn't support them open carrying because I think open carry is a stupid idea whether it's at a political rally or someone at Chipotle with an AK over their shoulder. I think you have a constitutional right to open carry but that doesn't make it a good idea.
The New Black Panther Party, a "black power" movement, will carry firearms for self-defense during rallies in Cleveland ahead of next week's Republican convention, if allowed under Ohio law, the group's chairman said.
You'd think they would spend a minute to Google the law to see what it says before making big statements about it
I'm generally not a huge fan of open carry for a number of reasons. If used as part of a protest in a planned, safe, meaningful, and not in a directly threatening fashion (don't walk about loaded and carrying at low ready...seriously), I can accept that, but please be intelligent about it.
Ultimately however, there's a line amongst some groups that tends to hold true, which is that the fastest way to get gun control passed is to have minorities start carrying weapons. I'm not sure I totally buy that, but Black Panthers carrying on the steps of the CA legislature killed open carry in CA (courtesy of Ronald Reagan ) and started that state on its long and strong push for gun control. I find this distressing, as our rights, including those pertaining to firearms, should apply and be utilized by people of all backgrounds equally.
Let them open carry. It will mean they have to be more responsible than they might otherwise be. For example, the Black Panthers love provoking and intimidating people. Unfortunately for them, most states attach things like "five additional years" for even the smallest of crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, whether it is used or not.
Ahtman wrote: AFAIK the Black Panthers and the New Black Panthers are separate groups with the latter taking their name from the former, but adding the 'New' to it.
I'm not sure about this.
I think I have heard that the Black Panthers have been concerned about their membership numbers, so they came up with the New Black Panthers to create some noise in the media. Once the open carry protest and other actions get people upset about the change, they will probably merge and become Black Panthers Classic.
Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
Given that you are not an American citizen, do you have any data to back that up?
Being or not being of a certain nationality has nothing to do with a user's permissions to post on this forum. Let's nip that line of argument in the bud right now. Find a better one.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
Given that you are not an American citizen, do you have any data to back that up?
Data? You're pulling my leg!!!
Reaching over to my bookcase, I open my American history textbooks and what do I see:
Take aim! 1831. In the aftermath of the Nat Turner rebellion, Tennesse passes gun control laws that stops freemen from owning guns. No such law was passed stop white Americans from owning guns...Arkansas followed in 1836, Florida in 1838...
Boom! southern states deny African Americans the right to own arms following the civil war and the reconstruction period.
"In the period after the American Civil War, blacks rushed to buy firearms and formed militias to protect their newfound rights. Anti-slavery activists like William Lloyd Garrison were indignant that African Americans had their right to bear arms curtailed. In a publication issued shortly after the war, the African Methodist Episcopal Church – noted the importance of the Second Amendment to African Americans: ‘We have several times alluded to the fact that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to every citizen the right to keep and bear arms."
And here's more:
"A stark illustration of the racist precedents for the idea of ‘gun culture’ can be found in an article in the Atlanta Journal, written after the Atlanta race riot of 1906: ‘Disarm the negroes… A good negro is contaminated by the possession of a weapon in a time like this; a bad negro is made very much worse the moment he places a pistol in his pocket...."
Bang! Ronald Reagan, hero of the right, as governor of California, brings in restrictive firearm controls to stop those African Americans wearing berets from getting their hands on guns.
"It is also worth remembering that the first act of the Black Panthers in the 1960s was to protest against a gun-control proposal – the Mulford Act (1967) – being put through the California legislature specifically to stop armed Panther patrols. Carrying shotguns and rifles, the Panthers continually promoted armed self-defence. Arrayed against them were Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.."
But wait! Reagan and Nixon were heroes of the right, heroes and defenders of civil liberty, were they not? Or is this just a myth?
Fire! The NRA, during the 1960s, that fearless defender of the 2nd amendment, backed the Mulford act...
Well, I never... Who would have thought that an organisation tasked with defending the right to bear arms should itself back gun control against certain sections of American society...
I'm not having a go at you, but I do like America, its people, and I love American history...
Sadly, though, the history of the 2nd amendment is littered with clear examples of measures being passed to deny Black Americans their constitutional rights...and that in itself is anti-American...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
Given that you are not an American citizen, do you have any data to back that up?
Data? You're pulling my leg!!!
Reaching over to my bookcase...
Exalted. I've no idea if anything you posted was accurate or not, but I approve of scholarship wherever it comes from.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
Given that you are not an American citizen, do you have any data to back that up?
That is a correct statement in many regions: the South and West. South: antifirearm regs expanded post ACW. Initially they were limited to slaves but expanded afterwards for wink wink nudge nudge reasons. California and West: real antigun legislation appeared with the Black Panthers.
EDIT: I see the aforementioned Brit already ninja'd me...like a color sergeant out of Zulu shouting "Get to work or I'll wear your guts for garters you dogs!" Ah, that was refreshing.
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing.
I mean, why? Are they in fear for their lives while shopping for discount picture frames? Is someone going to attack them while they browse through the Star Wars aisle?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
Given that you are not an American citizen, do you have any data to back that up?
That is a correct statement in many regions: the South and West.
South: antifirearm regs expanded post ACW. Initially they were limited to slaves but expanded afterwards for wink wink nudge nudge reasons.
California and West: real antigun legislation appeared with the Black Panthers.
EDIT: I see the aforementioned Brit already ninja'd me...like a color sergeant out of Zulu shouting "Get to work or I'll wear your guts for garters you dogs!"
Ah, that was refreshing.
Frazz, I don't have to tell you, or any other American dakka member that American history, like British history, has events that were quite frankly, downright shameful and disgusting - that's human nature.
Nor should modern Americans be made to feel guilty for the actions of their ancestors. None the less, the 2nd amendment is the birthright of every American, be they democrat, republican, black, white, Hispanic, Native American, etc etc
If these new black panthers want to exercise their constitutional rights and open carry in areas where it is legally permitted, , let them do so, and let all defenders of liberty in the USA support them, regardless if you support their politics or not.
I dislike open carry in general and heated political rallies seem to be a terrible place to have weapons floating around. But if the NRA is other than rabidly enthusiastic about it, I smell the overwhelming stench of hypocrisy. Besides, they are just a gun manufacturers lobby anyway, so, presumably, open warfare on America's streets would be pretty good for business.
Correct me if im wrong, but Open Carry only applies to public places?
If I was a business owner/land owner would I be in my rights to say I would ban serving of people who bring weapons into my business?
Or does open carry apply to everything.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Correct me if im wrong, but Open Carry only applies to public places?
If I was a business owner/land owner would I be in my rights to say I would ban serving of people who bring weapons into my business?
Or does open carry apply to everything.
Public places, excluding no gun zones (schools, courthouses, etc).
Businesses can refuse service for a number of reasons. "No shoes, no service", can install "15 round magazines or less aisles", or even just say "Don't bring your fething gun in here, thanks."
If legal I have no real issue with these guys carrying in public as is their right. If something goes down, those weapons need to hit the ground fast, lest police think they are a part of it. I see no reason for them to do so other than they want to do their typically thuggish intimidation thing they are so well known for. Although usually when I have seen the videos, I tend to chuckle at their "mean and serious" war faces. Look up the Trayvon Martin case and the interviews with the Panthers outside the courthouse, they are hilarious in how serious they take themselves trying to show how tough they are to the viewers.
Open carry with long arms is stupid and I am a gun nut. The only reason I can see it having practical purpose is hiking, camping or something like that where you may have to deal with hostile wildlife and even then one would think a pistol would be better. These guys that do it in stores and so forth just to make a scene give the rest of us a bad name. I can understand open carry of pistols, CCWs dig in, they are hot, etc. Much more practical to not have to reach under the shirt to grab a weapon. On the other hand, everyone knows you are carrying so you become any potential bad guy's first target, surprise!
Concealed is far more useful on almost every level. No one knows you have it, no one panics, and you aren't a target by default. Open carry with concealed gives you that much more protection if it gets revealed.
About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
I don't have any issue with the New Black Panthers or anybody else exercising their 2A rights in a lawful and safe manner.
There are a ton of crappy gun control laws still on the books here in NC that are just a holdover from Jim Crow legislation. Why do county sherrifs need to issue concealed carry permits when the permit is a state license? Because they needed a mechanism to make sure that only the white, I mean, right people got them.
kronk wrote: Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing.
I mean, why? Are they in fear for their lives while shopping for discount picture frames? Is someone going to attack them while they browse through the Star Wars aisle?
Clearly you've never collected toys. Those scalpers can be downright vicious.
Jihadin wrote: About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
Immortal Budha say 10mm kick like ticked off mule, shoot what god* gave you instead.
kronk wrote: Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing.
I mean, why? Are they in fear for their lives while shopping for discount picture frames? Is someone going to attack them while they browse through the Star Wars aisle?
Clearly you've never collected toys. Those scalpers can be downright vicious.
Thats nothing. I'd like link Fatman and Snowboots at a restaurant from a year back, but I can't link youtube/photo from here, and more importantly, what is seen cannot be unseen.
kronk wrote: Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing.
I mean, why? Are they in fear for their lives while shopping for discount picture frames? Is someone going to attack them while they browse through the Star Wars aisle?
if you ever been to some store when they open you would understand, them scalpers are maniacs and dangerous at times.
as to the Black Panther's open/carrying at the RNC i'm of 2 minds on this, I do believe in the 2nd. amendment and the right to open carry, but on the other hand I have a bad feeling about this at highly stressful events and lets face it wherever Trump shows up things get out of hand mighty fast by protesters.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
The first real pushes towards gun control in the US were along those lines, yes.
As towards the race baiting... yes, as long as they legally open carry, then why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?
Do I anticipate some problems? I'd say it's likely. This is the same party that though this was a good idea.
Prestor John- Sheriffs are constitutionally elected officers who while their duty is to enforce the law, they are also charged with enforcing the constitution in their domains. The 2nd Amendment falls into this domain thus why they are the ones to sign off on it. I believe this is the sheriff's duty in every state. The real kicker is that some states are shall issue states and some are may issue states. NC I believe is a shall issue state like most southern and red states. NY is a may issue state and you have to prove a reason so he may or may not issue it. In a shall issue, they shall issue the permit unless they have a good legally binding reason not to.
That's why if there ever was to be a confiscation of guns in this country, it would be up to the sheriff to decide whether that was constitutional or not and whether to enforce it. Sheriffs hold a lot of power, they and your local politicians are the ones who will have the biggest impact in your life and it pays to pay attention and vote wisely for them.
If something occurs at this rally, I doubt it will be the Black Panthers that start it. They seem to be fairly well disciplined for a rabble and listen to their leaders. If something happens it will be a lone wolf type that instigates it. The last thing the Panthers want is a massacre of some sort which really puts them in negative spotlights. They know with their guns they will be big targets. While they may talk and look all big and bad, they know they wouldn't stand for long against prepared and armored cops in a stand up gun fight.
Col. Dash wrote: Prestor John- Sheriffs are constitutionally elected officers who while their duty is to enforce the law, they are also charged with enforcing the constitution in their domains. The 2nd Amendment falls into this domain thus why they are the ones to sign off on it. I believe this is the sheriff's duty in every state. The real kicker is that some states are shall issue states and some are may issue states. NC I believe is a shall issue state like most southern and red states. NY is a may issue state and you have to prove a reason so he may or may not issue it. In a shall issue, they shall issue the permit unless they have a good legally binding reason not to.
That's why if there ever was to be a confiscation of guns in this country, it would be up to the sheriff to decide whether that was constitutional or not and whether to enforce it. Sheriffs hold a lot of power, they and your local politicians are the ones who will have the biggest impact in your life and it pays to pay attention and vote wisely for them.
If something occurs at this rally, I doubt it will be the Black Panthers that start it. They seem to be fairly well disciplined for a rabble and listen to their leaders. If something happens it will be a lone wolf type that instigates it. The last thing the Panthers want is a massacre of some sort which really puts them in negative spotlights. They know with their guns they will be big targets. While they may talk and look all big and bad, they know they wouldn't stand for long against prepared and armored cops in a stand up gun fight.
I doubt it would be NBP vs cops. It would be NBP vs Various Rednecks for Trump. How the cops respond to that, idk.
Col. Dash wrote: Prestor John- Sheriffs are constitutionally elected officers who while their duty is to enforce the law, they are also charged with enforcing the constitution in their domains. The 2nd Amendment falls into this domain thus why they are the ones to sign off on it. I believe this is the sheriff's duty in every state. The real kicker is that some states are shall issue states and some are may issue states. NC I believe is a shall issue state like most southern and red states. NY is a may issue state and you have to prove a reason so he may or may not issue it. In a shall issue, they shall issue the permit unless they have a good legally binding reason not to.
That's why if there ever was to be a confiscation of guns in this country, it would be up to the sheriff to decide whether that was constitutional or not and whether to enforce it. Sheriffs hold a lot of power, they and your local politicians are the ones who will have the biggest impact in your life and it pays to pay attention and vote wisely for them.
If something occurs at this rally, I doubt it will be the Black Panthers that start it. They seem to be fairly well disciplined for a rabble and listen to their leaders. If something happens it will be a lone wolf type that instigates it. The last thing the Panthers want is a massacre of some sort which really puts them in negative spotlights. They know with their guns they will be big targets. While they may talk and look all big and bad, they know they wouldn't stand for long against prepared and armored cops in a stand up gun fight.
I doubt it would be NBP vs cops. It would be NBP vs Various Rednecks for Trump. How the cops respond to that, idk.
think it might break down to NBP vs. Cops then since don't think many rednecks up that way.
as to who starts it? who knows it could be any single small item that starts something and with guns on both sides it could get ugly real quick.
Col. Dash wrote: Prestor John- Sheriffs are constitutionally elected officers who while their duty is to enforce the law, they are also charged with enforcing the constitution in their domains. The 2nd Amendment falls into this domain thus why they are the ones to sign off on it. I believe this is the sheriff's duty in every state. The real kicker is that some states are shall issue states and some are may issue states. NC I believe is a shall issue state like most southern and red states. NY is a may issue state and you have to prove a reason so he may or may not issue it. In a shall issue, they shall issue the permit unless they have a good legally binding reason not to.
That's why if there ever was to be a confiscation of guns in this country, it would be up to the sheriff to decide whether that was constitutional or not and whether to enforce it. Sheriffs hold a lot of power, they and your local politicians are the ones who will have the biggest impact in your life and it pays to pay attention and vote wisely for them.
If something occurs at this rally, I doubt it will be the Black Panthers that start it. They seem to be fairly well disciplined for a rabble and listen to their leaders. If something happens it will be a lone wolf type that instigates it. The last thing the Panthers want is a massacre of some sort which really puts them in negative spotlights. They know with their guns they will be big targets. While they may talk and look all big and bad, they know they wouldn't stand for long against prepared and armored cops in a stand up gun fight.
I doubt it would be NBP vs cops. It would be NBP vs Various Rednecks for Trump. How the cops respond to that, idk.
think it might break down to NBP vs. Cops then since don't think many rednecks up that way.
as to who starts it? who knows it could be any single small item that starts something and with guns on both sides it could get ugly real quick.
Well, in the article the BNP claims they are arming in response to the Trump supporters who say they are going to open carry to the rallies.
Although Ohio is the State that killed a bunch of basically peacefully protesting kids, so who knows.
Col. Dash wrote: Prestor John- Sheriffs are constitutionally elected officers who while their duty is to enforce the law, they are also charged with enforcing the constitution in their domains. The 2nd Amendment falls into this domain thus why they are the ones to sign off on it. I believe this is the sheriff's duty in every state. The real kicker is that some states are shall issue states and some are may issue states. NC I believe is a shall issue state like most southern and red states. NY is a may issue state and you have to prove a reason so he may or may not issue it. In a shall issue, they shall issue the permit unless they have a good legally binding reason not to.
That's why if there ever was to be a confiscation of guns in this country, it would be up to the sheriff to decide whether that was constitutional or not and whether to enforce it. Sheriffs hold a lot of power, they and your local politicians are the ones who will have the biggest impact in your life and it pays to pay attention and vote wisely for them.
If something occurs at this rally, I doubt it will be the Black Panthers that start it. They seem to be fairly well disciplined for a rabble and listen to their leaders. If something happens it will be a lone wolf type that instigates it. The last thing the Panthers want is a massacre of some sort which really puts them in negative spotlights. They know with their guns they will be big targets. While they may talk and look all big and bad, they know they wouldn't stand for long against prepared and armored cops in a stand up gun fight.
I doubt it would be NBP vs cops. It would be NBP vs Various Rednecks for Trump. How the cops respond to that, idk.
think it might break down to NBP vs. Cops then since don't think many rednecks up that way.
as to who starts it? who knows it could be any single small item that starts something and with guns on both sides it could get ugly real quick.
Well, in the article the BNP claims they are arming in response to the Trump supporters who say they are going to open carry to the rallies.
Although Ohio is the State that killed a bunch of basically peacefully protesting kids, so who knows.
what Trump Supporters said they will be carrying? got an article on that? since haven't heard that one yet, and if so this gonna get ugly real fast 2 opposing factions armed is not a good thing.
So, I'm putting this as it's own thread instead of in the political thread because this topic encompasses more than just the actual RNC event - it also covers rallies leading up to it.
The New Black Panther Party, a "black power" movement, will carry firearms for self-defense during rallies in Cleveland ahead of next week's Republican convention, if allowed under Ohio law, the group's chairman said.
The plan by the group this weekend comes as police in Cleveland brace for an influx of groups that plan demonstrations before and during the presidential nominating convention.
During the attack last week in Dallas that killed five police officers, law enforcement officials said demonstrators carrying rifles led them to initially believe they were under attack by multiple shooters.
Several other groups, including some supporters of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said they will carry weapons in Cleveland.
Spoiler:
"If it is an open state to carry, we will exercise our second amendment rights because there are other groups threatening to be there that are threatening to do harm to us," Hashim Nzinga, chairman of the New Black Panther Party, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"If that state allows us to bear arms, the Panthers and the others who can legally bear arms will bear arms."
Nzinga said he condemned the Dallas shootings.
Officials in Ohio have said it will be legal for protesters to carry weapons at demonstrations outside the convention under that state’s "open carry" law, which allows civilians to carry guns in public.
"Black power" groups promote defense against racial oppression, with some advocating for the establishment of armed self-defense groups, black social institutions and a self-sufficient economy.
The New Black Panther Party has long called for a separate black nation. But Nzinga said the movement was now focused on protecting black Americans' rights.
Academics say the New Black Panther Party remains marginal and largely representative of an older generation, in their 30s and 40s, rather than younger activists drawn to groups such as the anti-racism Black Lives Matter movement.
The New Black Panther Party was founded in 1989 and adopted a more radical approach than the 1960s Black Panther Party. Members of the original group have denounced the New Black Panther Party as racist, but Nzinga says his movement includes original Black Panthers.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate group watchdog, describes the New Black Panther Party as “a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."
RELATED VIDEO
Video
Cleveland police chief: Prepared for open-carry at RNC
The center tracks years of public statements by the New Black Panther Party and other groups. Nzinga denied the group was racist but said it was a fact that Jews control Hollywood and the U.S. media.
The center said the group is not known to have carried out any violent attacks. The black shooter in the Dallas killings "liked" the New Black Panthers and other black nationalist groups on Facebook but was not a member.
"THERE TO PROTECT"
Nzinga said he expected “a couple hundred” members of the New Black Panther Party to participate in and protect a black unity rally -- the "National Convention of the Oppressed" -- that is scheduled to begin in Cleveland on Thursday evening and end on Monday morning. Nzinga said he and the Panthers plan to leave Cleveland on Sunday, the day before the convention officially opens.
“We are there to protect ... We are not trying to do anything else,” he said. "We are going to carry out some of these great legal rights we have -- to assemble, to protest and (to exercise) freedom of speech.”
Nzinga says his group has grown amid racial tensions in the wake of a series of high-profile police killings of black men in the past two years. The Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of black militant chapters around the country grew from 113 in 2014 to 180 in 2015.
The center says there are 892 hate groups total nationwide. It says white hate groups, such as the Aryan Brotherhood, have a much longer track record of carrying out violent attacks than black nationalist groups.
Nzinga said his group has 36 chapters nationwide but declined to reveal membership numbers.
“I have people literally calling me saying this is the first time in my life I protested and I loved it.” Nzinga told Reuters. "They want to be a part of something. They tried to be a part of the system and the system let them down so they want to be part of a rebellion.”
(Reporting By Ned Parker; additional reporting by Daniel Trotta; editing by Stuart Grudgings.; Editing by David Rohde and Stuart Grudgings)
So, I'm putting this as it's own thread instead of in the political thread because this topic encompasses more than just the actual RNC event - it also covers rallies leading up to it.
The New Black Panther Party, a "black power" movement, will carry firearms for self-defense during rallies in Cleveland ahead of next week's Republican convention, if allowed under Ohio law, the group's chairman said.
The plan by the group this weekend comes as police in Cleveland brace for an influx of groups that plan demonstrations before and during the presidential nominating convention.
During the attack last week in Dallas that killed five police officers, law enforcement officials said demonstrators carrying rifles led them to initially believe they were under attack by multiple shooters.
Several other groups, including some supporters of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said they will carry weapons in Cleveland.
Spoiler:
"If it is an open state to carry, we will exercise our second amendment rights because there are other groups threatening to be there that are threatening to do harm to us," Hashim Nzinga, chairman of the New Black Panther Party, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"If that state allows us to bear arms, the Panthers and the others who can legally bear arms will bear arms."
Nzinga said he condemned the Dallas shootings.
Officials in Ohio have said it will be legal for protesters to carry weapons at demonstrations outside the convention under that state’s "open carry" law, which allows civilians to carry guns in public.
"Black power" groups promote defense against racial oppression, with some advocating for the establishment of armed self-defense groups, black social institutions and a self-sufficient economy.
The New Black Panther Party has long called for a separate black nation. But Nzinga said the movement was now focused on protecting black Americans' rights.
Academics say the New Black Panther Party remains marginal and largely representative of an older generation, in their 30s and 40s, rather than younger activists drawn to groups such as the anti-racism Black Lives Matter movement.
The New Black Panther Party was founded in 1989 and adopted a more radical approach than the 1960s Black Panther Party. Members of the original group have denounced the New Black Panther Party as racist, but Nzinga says his movement includes original Black Panthers.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate group watchdog, describes the New Black Panther Party as “a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."
RELATED VIDEO
Video
Cleveland police chief: Prepared for open-carry at RNC
The center tracks years of public statements by the New Black Panther Party and other groups. Nzinga denied the group was racist but said it was a fact that Jews control Hollywood and the U.S. media.
The center said the group is not known to have carried out any violent attacks. The black shooter in the Dallas killings "liked" the New Black Panthers and other black nationalist groups on Facebook but was not a member.
"THERE TO PROTECT"
Nzinga said he expected “a couple hundred” members of the New Black Panther Party to participate in and protect a black unity rally -- the "National Convention of the Oppressed" -- that is scheduled to begin in Cleveland on Thursday evening and end on Monday morning. Nzinga said he and the Panthers plan to leave Cleveland on Sunday, the day before the convention officially opens.
“We are there to protect ... We are not trying to do anything else,” he said. "We are going to carry out some of these great legal rights we have -- to assemble, to protest and (to exercise) freedom of speech.”
Nzinga says his group has grown amid racial tensions in the wake of a series of high-profile police killings of black men in the past two years. The Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of black militant chapters around the country grew from 113 in 2014 to 180 in 2015.
The center says there are 892 hate groups total nationwide. It says white hate groups, such as the Aryan Brotherhood, have a much longer track record of carrying out violent attacks than black nationalist groups.
Nzinga said his group has 36 chapters nationwide but declined to reveal membership numbers.
“I have people literally calling me saying this is the first time in my life I protested and I loved it.” Nzinga told Reuters. "They want to be a part of something. They tried to be a part of the system and the system let them down so they want to be part of a rebellion.”
(Reporting By Ned Parker; additional reporting by Daniel Trotta; editing by Stuart Grudgings.; Editing by David Rohde and Stuart Grudgings)
Right in the opening post. Bolded for clarity.
Edit: Spoilered for size
saw that part but no evidence, no group coming out like the NBP did saying they will open carry thats what i'm asking for some report or article where some Trump support group came out and said they will be open carrying.
So, I'm putting this as it's own thread instead of in the political thread because this topic encompasses more than just the actual RNC event - it also covers rallies leading up to it.
The New Black Panther Party, a "black power" movement, will carry firearms for self-defense during rallies in Cleveland ahead of next week's Republican convention, if allowed under Ohio law, the group's chairman said.
The plan by the group this weekend comes as police in Cleveland brace for an influx of groups that plan demonstrations before and during the presidential nominating convention.
During the attack last week in Dallas that killed five police officers, law enforcement officials said demonstrators carrying rifles led them to initially believe they were under attack by multiple shooters.
Several other groups, including some supporters of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said they will carry weapons in Cleveland.
Spoiler:
"If it is an open state to carry, we will exercise our second amendment rights because there are other groups threatening to be there that are threatening to do harm to us," Hashim Nzinga, chairman of the New Black Panther Party, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"If that state allows us to bear arms, the Panthers and the others who can legally bear arms will bear arms."
Nzinga said he condemned the Dallas shootings.
Officials in Ohio have said it will be legal for protesters to carry weapons at demonstrations outside the convention under that state’s "open carry" law, which allows civilians to carry guns in public.
"Black power" groups promote defense against racial oppression, with some advocating for the establishment of armed self-defense groups, black social institutions and a self-sufficient economy.
The New Black Panther Party has long called for a separate black nation. But Nzinga said the movement was now focused on protecting black Americans' rights.
Academics say the New Black Panther Party remains marginal and largely representative of an older generation, in their 30s and 40s, rather than younger activists drawn to groups such as the anti-racism Black Lives Matter movement.
The New Black Panther Party was founded in 1989 and adopted a more radical approach than the 1960s Black Panther Party. Members of the original group have denounced the New Black Panther Party as racist, but Nzinga says his movement includes original Black Panthers.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate group watchdog, describes the New Black Panther Party as “a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."
RELATED VIDEO
Video
Cleveland police chief: Prepared for open-carry at RNC
The center tracks years of public statements by the New Black Panther Party and other groups. Nzinga denied the group was racist but said it was a fact that Jews control Hollywood and the U.S. media.
The center said the group is not known to have carried out any violent attacks. The black shooter in the Dallas killings "liked" the New Black Panthers and other black nationalist groups on Facebook but was not a member.
"THERE TO PROTECT"
Nzinga said he expected “a couple hundred” members of the New Black Panther Party to participate in and protect a black unity rally -- the "National Convention of the Oppressed" -- that is scheduled to begin in Cleveland on Thursday evening and end on Monday morning. Nzinga said he and the Panthers plan to leave Cleveland on Sunday, the day before the convention officially opens.
“We are there to protect ... We are not trying to do anything else,” he said. "We are going to carry out some of these great legal rights we have -- to assemble, to protest and (to exercise) freedom of speech.”
Nzinga says his group has grown amid racial tensions in the wake of a series of high-profile police killings of black men in the past two years. The Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of black militant chapters around the country grew from 113 in 2014 to 180 in 2015.
The center says there are 892 hate groups total nationwide. It says white hate groups, such as the Aryan Brotherhood, have a much longer track record of carrying out violent attacks than black nationalist groups.
Nzinga said his group has 36 chapters nationwide but declined to reveal membership numbers.
“I have people literally calling me saying this is the first time in my life I protested and I loved it.” Nzinga told Reuters. "They want to be a part of something. They tried to be a part of the system and the system let them down so they want to be part of a rebellion.”
(Reporting By Ned Parker; additional reporting by Daniel Trotta; editing by Stuart Grudgings.; Editing by David Rohde and Stuart Grudgings)
Right in the opening post. Bolded for clarity.
Edit: Spoilered for size
saw that part but no evidence, no group coming out like the NBP did saying they will open carry thats what i'm asking for some report or article where some Trump support group came out and said they will be open carrying.
That is an article, from Reuters. Presumably they're not just making gak up.
Here is an article from the Telegraph that says Oath Keepers are planning to open carry in Cleveland.
Col. Dash wrote: Prestor John- Sheriffs are constitutionally elected officers who while their duty is to enforce the law, they are also charged with enforcing the constitution in their domains. The 2nd Amendment falls into this domain thus why they are the ones to sign off on it. I believe this is the sheriff's duty in every state. The real kicker is that some states are shall issue states and some are may issue states. NC I believe is a shall issue state like most southern and red states. NY is a may issue state and you have to prove a reason so he may or may not issue it. In a shall issue, they shall issue the permit unless they have a good legally binding reason not to.
That's why if there ever was to be a confiscation of guns in this country, it would be up to the sheriff to decide whether that was constitutional or not and whether to enforce it. Sheriffs hold a lot of power, they and your local politicians are the ones who will have the biggest impact in your life and it pays to pay attention and vote wisely for them.
If something occurs at this rally, I doubt it will be the Black Panthers that start it. They seem to be fairly well disciplined for a rabble and listen to their leaders. If something happens it will be a lone wolf type that instigates it. The last thing the Panthers want is a massacre of some sort which really puts them in negative spotlights. They know with their guns they will be big targets. While they may talk and look all big and bad, they know they wouldn't stand for long against prepared and armored cops in a stand up gun fight.
NC is a shall issue state and you have to apply to your county sherrif for your carry permit. Historically it was disproportionately difficult for black residents to get their carry permit applications processed. That was a big reason why the system was designed to go through the county sherrifs, so that sherrifs could keep the "wrong" people from lawfully carrying concealed.
I doubt there will be any real attempts at confiscation of firearms in my lifetime. If there are it's going to be very difficult to enforce since there's gun registry of any kind that tracks firearm ownership. My county sherrif knows I have a carry permit, that's it. If I applied for any NFA items like suppressors I'd need the county sherrif to sign off on the application too.
Local politicians definitely have the ability to have a big impact on your life. Thankfully they also require the least amount of votes to get elected so it's easier for people to hold them accountable.
So, I'm putting this as it's own thread instead of in the political thread because this topic encompasses more than just the actual RNC event - it also covers rallies leading up to it.
The New Black Panther Party, a "black power" movement, will carry firearms for self-defense during rallies in Cleveland ahead of next week's Republican convention, if allowed under Ohio law, the group's chairman said.
The plan by the group this weekend comes as police in Cleveland brace for an influx of groups that plan demonstrations before and during the presidential nominating convention.
During the attack last week in Dallas that killed five police officers, law enforcement officials said demonstrators carrying rifles led them to initially believe they were under attack by multiple shooters.
Several other groups, including some supporters of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said they will carry weapons in Cleveland.
Spoiler:
"If it is an open state to carry, we will exercise our second amendment rights because there are other groups threatening to be there that are threatening to do harm to us," Hashim Nzinga, chairman of the New Black Panther Party, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"If that state allows us to bear arms, the Panthers and the others who can legally bear arms will bear arms."
Nzinga said he condemned the Dallas shootings.
Officials in Ohio have said it will be legal for protesters to carry weapons at demonstrations outside the convention under that state’s "open carry" law, which allows civilians to carry guns in public.
"Black power" groups promote defense against racial oppression, with some advocating for the establishment of armed self-defense groups, black social institutions and a self-sufficient economy.
The New Black Panther Party has long called for a separate black nation. But Nzinga said the movement was now focused on protecting black Americans' rights.
Academics say the New Black Panther Party remains marginal and largely representative of an older generation, in their 30s and 40s, rather than younger activists drawn to groups such as the anti-racism Black Lives Matter movement.
The New Black Panther Party was founded in 1989 and adopted a more radical approach than the 1960s Black Panther Party. Members of the original group have denounced the New Black Panther Party as racist, but Nzinga says his movement includes original Black Panthers.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate group watchdog, describes the New Black Panther Party as “a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."
RELATED VIDEO
Video
Cleveland police chief: Prepared for open-carry at RNC
The center tracks years of public statements by the New Black Panther Party and other groups. Nzinga denied the group was racist but said it was a fact that Jews control Hollywood and the U.S. media.
The center said the group is not known to have carried out any violent attacks. The black shooter in the Dallas killings "liked" the New Black Panthers and other black nationalist groups on Facebook but was not a member.
"THERE TO PROTECT"
Nzinga said he expected “a couple hundred” members of the New Black Panther Party to participate in and protect a black unity rally -- the "National Convention of the Oppressed" -- that is scheduled to begin in Cleveland on Thursday evening and end on Monday morning. Nzinga said he and the Panthers plan to leave Cleveland on Sunday, the day before the convention officially opens.
“We are there to protect ... We are not trying to do anything else,” he said. "We are going to carry out some of these great legal rights we have -- to assemble, to protest and (to exercise) freedom of speech.”
Nzinga says his group has grown amid racial tensions in the wake of a series of high-profile police killings of black men in the past two years. The Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of black militant chapters around the country grew from 113 in 2014 to 180 in 2015.
The center says there are 892 hate groups total nationwide. It says white hate groups, such as the Aryan Brotherhood, have a much longer track record of carrying out violent attacks than black nationalist groups.
Nzinga said his group has 36 chapters nationwide but declined to reveal membership numbers.
“I have people literally calling me saying this is the first time in my life I protested and I loved it.” Nzinga told Reuters. "They want to be a part of something. They tried to be a part of the system and the system let them down so they want to be part of a rebellion.”
(Reporting By Ned Parker; additional reporting by Daniel Trotta; editing by Stuart Grudgings.; Editing by David Rohde and Stuart Grudgings)
Right in the opening post. Bolded for clarity.
Edit: Spoilered for size
saw that part but no evidence, no group coming out like the NBP did saying they will open carry thats what i'm asking for some report or article where some Trump support group came out and said they will be open carrying.
That is an article, from Reuters. Presumably they're not just making gak up.
Here is an article from the Telegraph that says Oath Keepers are planning to open carry in Cleveland.
that link only goes to another story about the NBPP, but just to be thorough I checked out Oath Keepers and even their site and there is no mention of them open carrying at the RNC, so I call shananigans.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
Given that you are not an American citizen, do you have any data to back that up?
Data? You're pulling my leg!!!
Reaching over to my bookcase, I open my American history textbooks and what do I see:
Take aim! 1831. In the aftermath of the Nat Turner rebellion, Tennesse passes gun control laws that stops freemen from owning guns. No such law was passed stop white Americans from owning guns...Arkansas followed in 1836, Florida in 1838...
Boom! southern states deny African Americans the right to own arms following the civil war and the reconstruction period.
"In the period after the American Civil War, blacks rushed to buy firearms and formed militias to protect their newfound rights. Anti-slavery activists like William Lloyd Garrison were indignant that African Americans had their right to bear arms curtailed. In a publication issued shortly after the war, the African Methodist Episcopal Church – noted the importance of the Second Amendment to African Americans: ‘We have several times alluded to the fact that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to every citizen the right to keep and bear arms."
And here's more:
"A stark illustration of the racist precedents for the idea of ‘gun culture’ can be found in an article in the Atlanta Journal, written after the Atlanta race riot of 1906: ‘Disarm the negroes… A good negro is contaminated by the possession of a weapon in a time like this; a bad negro is made very much worse the moment he places a pistol in his pocket...."
Bang! Ronald Reagan, hero of the right, as governor of California, brings in restrictive firearm controls to stop those African Americans wearing berets from getting their hands on guns.
"It is also worth remembering that the first act of the Black Panthers in the 1960s was to protest against a gun-control proposal – the Mulford Act (1967) – being put through the California legislature specifically to stop armed Panther patrols. Carrying shotguns and rifles, the Panthers continually promoted armed self-defence. Arrayed against them were Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.."
But wait! Reagan and Nixon were heroes of the right, heroes and defenders of civil liberty, were they not? Or is this just a myth?
Fire! The NRA, during the 1960s, that fearless defender of the 2nd amendment, backed the Mulford act...
Well, I never... Who would have thought that an organisation tasked with defending the right to bear arms should itself back gun control against certain sections of American society...
I'm not having a go at you, but I do like America, its people, and I love American history...
Sadly, though, the history of the 2nd amendment is littered with clear examples of measures being passed to deny Black Americans their constitutional rights...and that in itself is anti-American...
apologize to all if it looked like I was saying non Americans should not post here, what I was actually looking for is what was posted in response, which is what I wish would happen more when I hear the "bad Americans and their gun laws" sentiment coming from many users here. I have no isue with the multi-national discussion, its one reason I hang out here since my 40k life is currently stagnant.
Now for the meat and potatoes. We as a country have come a long way, but we are not there yet. We have done deplorable things from our treatment of the native Americans to the internment camps of the Japanese American's at the start of WWII. I defend no law that is anti-group, even if that group is just a cover for bad people to do bad things. Individuals can un-earn the rights they have as Americans by doing certain acts, and proving that they can not be trusted with firearms, example federal conviction, no more weapons for you.
The 60s was ripe with open racism and segregation which tore a hole in our society. All of your examples seem to be pre 1960s, and are good examples but what about current laws. Federally, on paper anyway, we can not make those laws. American's of all nationalities are able to own any legal weapon they choose as long as they meet the requirements of the back ground check, and other local and state laws. So historically you are correct, however in reference to current times, none of those laws apply, and therefore are not real arguments to support your original claim. If we didn't want black Americans to own or operate weapons of any kind, my unit would literally have no one left to shoot the howitzers and my section would pretty much not have a job.
That is an article, from Reuters. Presumably they're not just making gak up.
Here is an article from the Telegraph that says Oath Keepers are planning to open carry in Cleveland.
that link only goes to another story about the NBPP, but just to be thorough I checked out Oath Keepers and even their site and there is no mention of them open carrying at the RNC, so I call shananigans.
The article I linked wrote:Another group, Oath Keepers, comprised of current and former members of the military have shown up at other tense events heavily armed and also say they plan to carry weapons into Cleveland.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
Given that you are not an American citizen, do you have any data to back that up?
Data? You're pulling my leg!!!
Reaching over to my bookcase, I open my American history textbooks and what do I see:
Take aim! 1831. In the aftermath of the Nat Turner rebellion, Tennesse passes gun control laws that stops freemen from owning guns. No such law was passed stop white Americans from owning guns...Arkansas followed in 1836, Florida in 1838...
Boom! southern states deny African Americans the right to own arms following the civil war and the reconstruction period.
"In the period after the American Civil War, blacks rushed to buy firearms and formed militias to protect their newfound rights. Anti-slavery activists like William Lloyd Garrison were indignant that African Americans had their right to bear arms curtailed. In a publication issued shortly after the war, the African Methodist Episcopal Church – noted the importance of the Second Amendment to African Americans: ‘We have several times alluded to the fact that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to every citizen the right to keep and bear arms."
And here's more:
"A stark illustration of the racist precedents for the idea of ‘gun culture’ can be found in an article in the Atlanta Journal, written after the Atlanta race riot of 1906: ‘Disarm the negroes… A good negro is contaminated by the possession of a weapon in a time like this; a bad negro is made very much worse the moment he places a pistol in his pocket...."
Bang! Ronald Reagan, hero of the right, as governor of California, brings in restrictive firearm controls to stop those African Americans wearing berets from getting their hands on guns.
"It is also worth remembering that the first act of the Black Panthers in the 1960s was to protest against a gun-control proposal – the Mulford Act (1967) – being put through the California legislature specifically to stop armed Panther patrols. Carrying shotguns and rifles, the Panthers continually promoted armed self-defence. Arrayed against them were Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.."
But wait! Reagan and Nixon were heroes of the right, heroes and defenders of civil liberty, were they not? Or is this just a myth?
Fire! The NRA, during the 1960s, that fearless defender of the 2nd amendment, backed the Mulford act...
Well, I never... Who would have thought that an organisation tasked with defending the right to bear arms should itself back gun control against certain sections of American society...
I'm not having a go at you, but I do like America, its people, and I love American history...
Sadly, though, the history of the 2nd amendment is littered with clear examples of measures being passed to deny Black Americans their constitutional rights...and that in itself is anti-American...
apologize to all if it looked like I was saying non Americans should not post here, what I was actually looking for is what was posted in response, which is what I wish would happen more when I hear the "bad Americans and their gun laws" sentiment coming from many users here. I have no isue with the multi-national discussion, its one reason I hang out here since my 40k life is currently stagnant.
Now for the meat and potatoes. We as a country have come a long way, but we are not there yet. We have done deplorable things from our treatment of the native Americans to the internment camps of the Japanese American's at the start of WWII. I defend no law that is anti-group, even if that group is just a cover for bad people to do bad things. Individuals can un-earn the rights they have as Americans by doing certain acts, and proving that they can not be trusted with firearms, example federal conviction, no more weapons for you.
The 60s was ripe with open racism and segregation which tore a hole in our society. All of your examples seem to be pre 1960s, and are good examples but what about current laws. Federally, on paper anyway, we can not make those laws. American's of all nationalities are able to own any legal weapon they choose as long as they meet the requirements of the back ground check, and other local and state laws. So historically you are correct, however in reference to current times, none of those laws apply, and therefore are not real arguments to support your original claim. If we didn't want black Americans to own or operate weapons of any kind, my unit would literally have no one left to shoot the howitzers and my section would pretty much not have a job.
Pretty much all of the gun control laws passed in the 1960s are still on the books in NC and are therefore still applicable laws. My county sherrif could easily make up perfectly legal excuses to deny the carry permit applications of people from any demographic group he didn't like. That power doesn't just go away because the current sherrif isn't abusing it. The next election could lead to a sherrif that does. The 9th Circuit Court just ruled against 2 citizens in CA that were suing over this very problem, their respective county sherrifs were using vague language in the permitting statutes to deny permits for people that on paper seemed to meet all the required criteria.
If my county sherrif doesn't approve my carry permit application than the only way I can purchase a handgun is to obtain a pistol purchase permit from my county sherrif. If my county sherrif denies my pistol purchase permit applcation as well then I can't legally own a pistol. Not because I did anything wrong but because my county sherrif doesn't want me to have one. So because of racist Jim Crow laws a large portion of my constitutionally guaranteed 2A rights can be revoked based upon the whimsy of my county sherrif.
That is an article, from Reuters. Presumably they're not just making gak up.
Here is an article from the Telegraph that says Oath Keepers are planning to open carry in Cleveland.
that link only goes to another story about the NBPP, but just to be thorough I checked out Oath Keepers and even their site and there is no mention of them open carrying at the RNC, so I call shananigans.
The article I linked wrote:Another group, Oath Keepers, comprised of current and former members of the military have shown up at other tense events heavily armed and also say they plan to carry weapons into Cleveland.
Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?
so I call shananigans.
and I repeat where other then buried in an NBPP article does it say that? since it sure has hell does not say it on their own site.
Prestor Jon wrote: The 9th Circuit Court just ruled against 2 citizens in CA that were suing over this very problem, their respective county sherrifs were using vague language in the permitting statutes to deny permits for people that on paper seemed to meet all the required criteria.
thought that was about concealed carry where California is trying to get rid of it?
That is an article, from Reuters. Presumably they're not just making gak up.
Here is an article from the Telegraph that says Oath Keepers are planning to open carry in Cleveland.
that link only goes to another story about the NBPP, but just to be thorough I checked out Oath Keepers and even their site and there is no mention of them open carrying at the RNC, so I call shananigans.
The article I linked wrote:Another group, Oath Keepers, comprised of current and former members of the military have shown up at other tense events heavily armed and also say they plan to carry weapons into Cleveland.
Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?
so I call shananigans.
and I repeat where other then buried in an NBPP article does it say that? since it sure has hell does not say it on their own site.
Prestor Jon wrote: The 9th Circuit Court just ruled against 2 citizens in CA that were suing over this very problem, their respective county sherrifs were using vague language in the permitting statutes to deny permits for people that on paper seemed to meet all the required criteria.
thought that was about concealed carry where California is trying to get rid of it?
CA is a may issue state, residents have to apply to their county sherrif for a concealed carry permit. In CA open carry is illegal so concealed carry is the only legal form of carrying a pistol. In multiple counties sherrifs are using the vague language in the CA statute that concealed carry permits have to show just cause for the need to get a concealed carry permit as an excuse to deny the permit applications of residents that meet all the other criteria for a permit. Two CA residents residing in two different counties sued the state of CA for violating their constitutional rights because between the law against open carry and the refusal of sherrifs to issue concealed carry permits the CA residents were being denied their constitutional right to bear arms. The 9th Circuit ruled that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry so concealed carry specifically isn't protected by the 2A.
That is an article, from Reuters. Presumably they're not just making gak up.
Here is an article from the Telegraph that says Oath Keepers are planning to open carry in Cleveland.
that link only goes to another story about the NBPP, but just to be thorough I checked out Oath Keepers and even their site and there is no mention of them open carrying at the RNC, so I call shananigans.
The article I linked wrote:Another group, Oath Keepers, comprised of current and former members of the military have shown up at other tense events heavily armed and also say they plan to carry weapons into Cleveland.
Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?
so I call shananigans.
and I repeat where other then buried in an NBPP article does it say that? since it sure has hell does not say it on their own site.
I don't know what to tell you, pal. If you're still at the stage where you refuse to believe legitimate sources like Reuters then perhaps talking with grown ups isn't for you.
That is an article, from Reuters. Presumably they're not just making gak up.
Here is an article from the Telegraph that says Oath Keepers are planning to open carry in Cleveland.
that link only goes to another story about the NBPP, but just to be thorough I checked out Oath Keepers and even their site and there is no mention of them open carrying at the RNC, so I call shananigans.
The article I linked wrote:Another group, Oath Keepers, comprised of current and former members of the military have shown up at other tense events heavily armed and also say they plan to carry weapons into Cleveland.
Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?
so I call shananigans.
and I repeat where other then buried in an NBPP article does it say that? since it sure has hell does not say it on their own site.
Prestor Jon wrote: The 9th Circuit Court just ruled against 2 citizens in CA that were suing over this very problem, their respective county sherrifs were using vague language in the permitting statutes to deny permits for people that on paper seemed to meet all the required criteria.
thought that was about concealed carry where California is trying to get rid of it?
CA is a may issue state, residents have to apply to their county sherrif for a concealed carry permit. In CA open carry is illegal so concealed carry is the only legal form of carrying a pistol. In multiple counties sherrifs are using the vague language in the CA statute that concealed carry permits have to show just cause for the need to get a concealed carry permit as an excuse to deny the permit applications of residents that meet all the other criteria for a permit. Two CA residents residing in two different counties sued the state of CA for violating their constitutional rights because between the law against open carry and the refusal of sherrifs to issue concealed carry permits the CA residents were being denied their constitutional right to bear arms. The 9th Circuit ruled that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry so concealed carry specifically isn't protected by the 2A.
so in other words California is trying to remove gun owners rights a little at a time, no surprise there, except that open carry is permitted by California law with a valid permit pursuant to California Penal Code 26350 PC
I don't know what to tell you, pal. If you're still at the stage where you refuse to believe legitimate sources like Reuters then perhaps talking with grown ups isn't for you.
and I repeat where did Reuters get it? the other link that mentions oath keepers is not Reuters though. so there must have been something said by someone unless Reuters is making it up?
and I repeat where did Reuters get it? the other link that mentions oath keepers is not Reuters though. so there must have been something said by someone unless Reuters is making it up?
I don't know what to tell you, pal. If you're still at the stage where you refuse to believe legitimate sources like Reuters then perhaps talking with grown ups isn't for you.
Does anyone else know what the police are supposed to do in the not-unlikely event that two opposing armed groups start shooting at each other?
Jihadin wrote: About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
45, the classic American military cartridge (I presume you mean 45 ACP.)
That is an article, from Reuters. Presumably they're not just making gak up.
Here is an article from the Telegraph that says Oath Keepers are planning to open carry in Cleveland.
that link only goes to another story about the NBPP, but just to be thorough I checked out Oath Keepers and even their site and there is no mention of them open carrying at the RNC, so I call shananigans.
The article I linked wrote:Another group, Oath Keepers, comprised of current and former members of the military have shown up at other tense events heavily armed and also say they plan to carry weapons into Cleveland.
Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?
so I call shananigans.
and I repeat where other then buried in an NBPP article does it say that? since it sure has hell does not say it on their own site.
Prestor Jon wrote: The 9th Circuit Court just ruled against 2 citizens in CA that were suing over this very problem, their respective county sherrifs were using vague language in the permitting statutes to deny permits for people that on paper seemed to meet all the required criteria.
thought that was about concealed carry where California is trying to get rid of it?
CA is a may issue state, residents have to apply to their county sherrif for a concealed carry permit. In CA open carry is illegal so concealed carry is the only legal form of carrying a pistol. In multiple counties sherrifs are using the vague language in the CA statute that concealed carry permits have to show just cause for the need to get a concealed carry permit as an excuse to deny the permit applications of residents that meet all the other criteria for a permit. Two CA residents residing in two different counties sued the state of CA for violating their constitutional rights because between the law against open carry and the refusal of sherrifs to issue concealed carry permits the CA residents were being denied their constitutional right to bear arms. The 9th Circuit ruled that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry so concealed carry specifically isn't protected by the 2A.
so in other words California is trying to remove gun owners rights a little at a time, no surprise there, except that open carry is permitted by California law with a valid permit pursuant to California Penal Code 26350 PC
If you need a permit to carry then it's not open carry. NC is an open carry state, you can open carry without a permit. You only need a permit to carry concealed because open carry is legal for anyone who lawfully owns a firearm. In CA it is illegal to open carry, it is only legal if you obtain a permit. That's a very significant difference.
and I repeat where did Reuters get it? the other link that mentions oath keepers is not Reuters though. so there must have been something said by someone unless Reuters is making it up?
I don't know what to tell you, pal. If you're still at the stage where you refuse to believe legitimate sources like Reuters then perhaps talking with grown ups isn't for you.
Does anyone else know what the police are supposed to do in the not-unlikely event that two opposing armed groups start shooting at each other?
and I repeat where did Reuters get it? the other link that mentions oath keepers is not Reuters though. so there must have been something said by someone unless Reuters is making it up?
I don't know what to tell you, pal. If you're still at the stage where you refuse to believe legitimate sources like Reuters then perhaps talking with grown ups isn't for you.
Does anyone else know what the police are supposed to do in the not-unlikely event that two opposing armed groups start shooting at each other?
I suspect nearly all of the open carrying groups on all the different sides are motivated by braggadocio.
Whilst the situation of a city with a major security operation concerning a very controversial political rally crowded with heavily armed men with nothing better to do than wander the streets "confronting" each other might at first sight seem like a recipe for disaster, I think it will pass off peacefully enough.
Remember the two BLM versus Bundy standoffs of recent years? The Bundistas in both cases were all, "Git orf moi laaarnd" and stuff, but in the end there was only one of them with the balls to pull his weapon on the police.
That's what it will be like in Ohio. Lots of strutting and bluster and facing up, but almost certainly no actual shooting.
Kilkrazy wrote: I suspect nearly all of the open carrying groups on all the different sides are motivated by braggadocio.
Whilst the situation of a city with a major security operation concerning a very controversial political rally crowded with heavily armed men with nothing better to do than wander the streets "confronting" each other might at first sight seem like a recipe for disaster, I think it will pass off peacefully enough.
Remember the two BLM versus Bundy standoffs of recent years? The Bundistas in both cases were all, "Git orf moi laaarnd" and stuff, but in the end there was only one of them with the balls to pull his weapon on the police.
That's what it will be like in Ohio. Lots of strutting and bluster and facing up, but almost certainly no actual shooting.
Almost certainly, yes. But I hope the police have a plan in place for if the bullets start flying. I'm curious what that plan would be.
Jihadin wrote: About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
and I repeat where did Reuters get it? the other link that mentions oath keepers is not Reuters though. so there must have been something said by someone unless Reuters is making it up?
I don't know what to tell you, pal. If you're still at the stage where you refuse to believe legitimate sources like Reuters then perhaps talking with grown ups isn't for you.
Does anyone else know what the police are supposed to do in the not-unlikely event that two opposing armed groups start shooting at each other?
No doubt the whole scenario will be totally civilized, with cards exchanged and police acting as seconds for the opposing sides.
Open carry is legal in Ohio, and they are just as free to exercise their 2nd Amendment right as anyone else. I'm not sure who is really going to be hypocritical about that. It's not like most people who support the 2nd Amendment never had it cross their minds that minorities also have constitutional rights and access to weapons.
and I repeat where did Reuters get it? the other link that mentions oath keepers is not Reuters though. so there must have been something said by someone unless Reuters is making it up?
I don't know what to tell you, pal. If you're still at the stage where you refuse to believe legitimate sources like Reuters then perhaps talking with grown ups isn't for you.
Does anyone else know what the police are supposed to do in the not-unlikely event that two opposing armed groups start shooting at each other?
No doubt the whole scenario will be totally civilized, with cards exchanged and police acting as seconds for the opposing sides.
Oh, I totally want this to happen, with top hats and monocles all round.
'Civil' Unrest mobile grievance cart. Fully stocked with top hats, monocles, dueling gloves for slapping of those that wrong you, and a selection of moustaches.
You know- I bet you would clean up at just about any sporting event with that now. Even if they were just buying the gear for selfies.
Gitzbitah wrote: 'Civil' Unrest mobile grievance cart. Fully stocked with top hats, monocles, dueling gloves for slapping of those that wrong you, and a selection of moustaches.
You know- I bet you would clean up at just about any sporting event with that now. Even if they were just buying the gear for selfies.
I think you're on to something here. You gotta cut Relapse and myself in as Creative, however.
Col. Dash wrote: Prestor John- Sheriffs are constitutionally elected officers who while their duty is to enforce the law, they are also charged with enforcing the constitution in their domains. The 2nd Amendment falls into this domain thus why they are the ones to sign off on it. I believe this is the sheriff's duty in every state. The real kicker is that some states are shall issue states and some are may issue states. NC I believe is a shall issue state like most southern and red states. NY is a may issue state and you have to prove a reason so he may or may not issue it. In a shall issue, they shall issue the permit unless they have a good legally binding reason not to.
That's why if there ever was to be a confiscation of guns in this country, it would be up to the sheriff to decide whether that was constitutional or not and whether to enforce it. Sheriffs hold a lot of power, they and your local politicians are the ones who will have the biggest impact in your life and it pays to pay attention and vote wisely for them.
If something occurs at this rally, I doubt it will be the Black Panthers that start it. They seem to be fairly well disciplined for a rabble and listen to their leaders. If something happens it will be a lone wolf type that instigates it. The last thing the Panthers want is a massacre of some sort which really puts them in negative spotlights. They know with their guns they will be big targets. While they may talk and look all big and bad, they know they wouldn't stand for long against prepared and armored cops in a stand up gun fight.
I doubt it would be NBP vs cops. It would be NBP vs Various Rednecks for Trump. How the cops respond to that, idk.
think it might break down to NBP vs. Cops then since don't think many rednecks up that way.
as to who starts it? who knows it could be any single small item that starts something and with guns on both sides it could get ugly real quick.
There might not be that many rednecks usually up that way but with the Trumpster in town for the convention, he'll attract them like flies to, well, Trump. Remember his immortal words, "I love the uneducated"...and they love him!
Oh my no, I am not nearly big and burly enough to survive vending activist rallies, and I'd imagine the hours are not conducive to raising kids. You need a hulking bodyguard type for sales.
I'm really wondering if this will turn into a riot, or if everyone will be so on edge over recent events that it never tips over into widespread violence.
If gun play breaks out, I just hope they don't waste 'Lola's', Michael Symon's restaurant downtown. If you ever get the opportunity, I highly recommend it!
Hordini wrote: Open carry is legal in Ohio, and they are just as free to exercise their 2nd Amendment right as anyone else. I'm not sure who is really going to be hypocritical about that. It's not like most people who support the 2nd Amendment never had it cross their minds that minorities also have constitutional rights and access to weapons.
Clearly you and I have very, very different experiences on Facebook
Jihadin wrote: About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
Be a rebel, forget modern weapons and use a pistol from the Napoleonic wars. Yes, you might only get two shots a minute, but if you make those shots count
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that, historically, most gun control measures in the USA were designed to stop African - Americans from getting their hands on firearms, it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects support 2nd amendment rights for every American, or just a select few...
Given that you are not an American citizen, do you have any data to back that up?
Data? You're pulling my leg!!!
Reaching over to my bookcase, I open my American history textbooks and what do I see:
Take aim! 1831. In the aftermath of the Nat Turner rebellion, Tennesse passes gun control laws that stops freemen from owning guns. No such law was passed stop white Americans from owning guns...Arkansas followed in 1836, Florida in 1838...
Boom! southern states deny African Americans the right to own arms following the civil war and the reconstruction period.
"In the period after the American Civil War, blacks rushed to buy firearms and formed militias to protect their newfound rights. Anti-slavery activists like William Lloyd Garrison were indignant that African Americans had their right to bear arms curtailed. In a publication issued shortly after the war, the African Methodist Episcopal Church – noted the importance of the Second Amendment to African Americans: ‘We have several times alluded to the fact that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to every citizen the right to keep and bear arms."
And here's more:
"A stark illustration of the racist precedents for the idea of ‘gun culture’ can be found in an article in the Atlanta Journal, written after the Atlanta race riot of 1906: ‘Disarm the negroes… A good negro is contaminated by the possession of a weapon in a time like this; a bad negro is made very much worse the moment he places a pistol in his pocket...."
Bang! Ronald Reagan, hero of the right, as governor of California, brings in restrictive firearm controls to stop those African Americans wearing berets from getting their hands on guns.
"It is also worth remembering that the first act of the Black Panthers in the 1960s was to protest against a gun-control proposal – the Mulford Act (1967) – being put through the California legislature specifically to stop armed Panther patrols. Carrying shotguns and rifles, the Panthers continually promoted armed self-defence. Arrayed against them were Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.."
But wait! Reagan and Nixon were heroes of the right, heroes and defenders of civil liberty, were they not? Or is this just a myth?
Fire! The NRA, during the 1960s, that fearless defender of the 2nd amendment, backed the Mulford act...
Well, I never... Who would have thought that an organisation tasked with defending the right to bear arms should itself back gun control against certain sections of American society...
I'm not having a go at you, but I do like America, its people, and I love American history...
Sadly, though, the history of the 2nd amendment is littered with clear examples of measures being passed to deny Black Americans their constitutional rights...and that in itself is anti-American...
apologize to all if it looked like I was saying non Americans should not post here, what I was actually looking for is what was posted in response, which is what I wish would happen more when I hear the "bad Americans and their gun laws" sentiment coming from many users here. I have no isue with the multi-national discussion, its one reason I hang out here since my 40k life is currently stagnant.
Now for the meat and potatoes. We as a country have come a long way, but we are not there yet. We have done deplorable things from our treatment of the native Americans to the internment camps of the Japanese American's at the start of WWII. I defend no law that is anti-group, even if that group is just a cover for bad people to do bad things. Individuals can un-earn the rights they have as Americans by doing certain acts, and proving that they can not be trusted with firearms, example federal conviction, no more weapons for you.
The 60s was ripe with open racism and segregation which tore a hole in our society. All of your examples seem to be pre 1960s, and are good examples but what about current laws. Federally, on paper anyway, we can not make those laws. American's of all nationalities are able to own any legal weapon they choose as long as they meet the requirements of the back ground check, and other local and state laws. So historically you are correct, however in reference to current times, none of those laws apply, and therefore are not real arguments to support your original claim. If we didn't want black Americans to own or operate weapons of any kind, my unit would literally have no one left to shoot the howitzers and my section would pretty much not have a job.
No need to apologise - it was an honest mistake, and I can sympathise with some Americans who are fed up with foreigners lecturing them on the 2nd amendment. During the Obama care debates a few years ago, I nearly put my foot through my TV every time I heard American media spout lies and ignorance about Britain's healthcare system, so yes, I can sympathise with Americans on this...
As I've mentioned many a time on dakka, American history is a hobby of mine, and the history of the 2nd amendment is a fascinating subject. It has been interpreted in many different ways these past 200 years. depending on the national mood. Some courts, including SCOTUS were at times happy to pass gun control laws, at other times, they struck them down...
Who knows what it will be like in 50 years time?
Returning to the subject, the reason why I'm against a lot of moral panics against gun ownership, is because historically, they were anti-African American.
Robert F Williams' 'Negroes with guns,' is a book I'd recommend to anybody who cares about 2A rights.
In 1960s North Carolina, African Americans were being terrorised, burned out, and murdered by the Klan. Local law enforcement was either corrupt, or complicit with the Klan, including the sheriff of Williams' home county.
So these people, naturally, wanted to defend themselves, so they took up arms, wrote to the NRA for help and affiliation, and got nothing...nothing...from the organisation that is supposed to be the 2A champion.
That's why I dislike the NRA, not because I'm anti-American, or bashing gun owners, but because they're hypocrites, a historical roadblock to giving minorities the 2A rights that they are morally, and legally, entitled too.
As others have pointed out on this thread, many of NC's gun laws from the 1960s are still there...
So when I see the American media getting in a twist about black people with guns, I think to myself, here we go again...
and I repeat where did Reuters get it? the other link that mentions oath keepers is not Reuters though. so there must have been something said by someone unless Reuters is making it up?
I don't know what to tell you, pal. If you're still at the stage where you refuse to believe legitimate sources like Reuters then perhaps talking with grown ups isn't for you.
Does anyone else know what the police are supposed to do in the not-unlikely event that two opposing armed groups start shooting at each other?
Sure, do like they did in the Waco biker shootout, shoot the hell out of everyone, arrest the hundred or so survivors, keep them jailed for months, and then quietly bury it...
If this goes down like the R convention in Mpls a few years back, the cops will be pulling permits and raiding everything with a even a whiff of political activism in the week leading up to the event.
and I repeat where did Reuters get it? the other link that mentions oath keepers is not Reuters though. so there must have been something said by someone unless Reuters is making it up?
I don't know what to tell you, pal. If you're still at the stage where you refuse to believe legitimate sources like Reuters then perhaps talking with grown ups isn't for you.
Does anyone else know what the police are supposed to do in the not-unlikely event that two opposing armed groups start shooting at each other?
Sure, do like they did in the Waco biker shootout, shoot the hell out of everyone, arrest the hundred or so survivors, keep them jailed for months, and then quietly bury it...
I did a quick read up on that event. Sounds like a real clusterfeth, and that had the benefit of everyone involved being Genuine Bad Guys (tm)
Extrapolate that from just a diner to an entire street, change the players from outlaw bikers to a random cross section of angry activists, and you've got a mess of epic proportions. Also, you've got the area lawyers happy for decades.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: That's why I dislike the NRA, not because I'm anti-American, or bashing gun owners, but because they're hypocrites, a historical roadblock to giving minorities the 2A rights that they are morally, and legally, entitled too.
That's really interesting, and the example you're talking about sounds very disappointing, especially considering that the NRA did assist African-Americans with fighting the Klan on other occasions. I'm wondering why the NC case was different?
Gitzbitah wrote: 'Civil' Unrest mobile grievance cart. Fully stocked with top hats, monocles, dueling gloves for slapping of those that wrong you, and a selection of moustaches.
You know- I bet you would clean up at just about any sporting event with that now. Even if they were just buying the gear for selfies.
I think you're on to something here. You gotta cut Relapse and myself in as Creative, however.
But these are people of fashion on both sides, and no doubt already possess the suitable accouterments for settling their differences in a gentlemanly or ladylike way.
Jihadin wrote: About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
Be a rebel, forget modern weapons and use a pistol from the Napoleonic wars. Yes, you might only get two shots a minute, but if you make those shots count
Two shots a minute? Tut tut. Someone needs to work on their drills.
A good soldier should be able to fire three rounds a minute in any weather
Jihadin wrote: About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
Be a rebel, forget modern weapons and use a pistol from the Napoleonic wars. Yes, you might only get two shots a minute, but if you make those shots count
Two shots a minute? Tut tut. Someone needs to work on their drills.
A good soldier should be able to fire three rounds a minute in any weather
Not according to a poster awhile back... a shot every 5 seconds...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: That's why I dislike the NRA, not because I'm anti-American, or bashing gun owners, but because they're hypocrites, a historical roadblock to giving minorities the 2A rights that they are morally, and legally, entitled too.
That's really interesting, and the example you're talking about sounds very disappointing, especially considering that the NRA did assist African-Americans with fighting the Klan on other occasions. I'm wondering why the NC case was different?
I'm no expert in gun legislation in the USA or any other country for that matter, so correct me if I'm wrong on this.
As you know, each state has obviously a different take on gun laws, but in NC in the 1960s, you needed the sheriff to sign your permit or something in order to get a licence for a gun...
But if the sheriff is corrupt or a member of the Klan...and you're African American...well, you can see the problem...
If memory serves, the self-defence groups they formed either had to get weapons from other states, and for NRA support, I'm pretty sure Williams had to pretend to be white...
Jihadin wrote: About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
Be a rebel, forget modern weapons and use a pistol from the Napoleonic wars. Yes, you might only get two shots a minute, but if you make those shots count
Two shots a minute? Tut tut. Someone needs to work on their drills.
A good soldier should be able to fire three rounds a minute in any weather
I suppose pistols would be quicker to re=load on foot, if they didn't have a rifled barrel, but I suppose re-loading a pistol on horseback would be trickier.
Jihadin wrote: About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
Be a rebel, forget modern weapons and use a pistol from the Napoleonic wars. Yes, you might only get two shots a minute, but if you make those shots count
Two shots a minute? Tut tut. Someone needs to work on their drills.
A good soldier should be able to fire three rounds a minute in any weather
Not according to a poster awhile back... a shot every 5 seconds...
If you like, we can discuss this on the firearms thread.
Cleveland police union asks for suspension of 'open carry' in wake of Baton Rouge, ahead of RNC
Cleveland, Ohio (CNN)The head of Cleveland's largest police union is calling on Ohio Gov. John Kasich to temporarily restrict the state's open carry gun laws during this week's Republican National Convention following Sunday's shooting in Louisiana that killed three officers and wounded at least three others.
"We are sending a letter to Gov. Kasich requesting assistance from him. He could very easily do some kind of executive order or something -- I don't care if it's constitutional or not at this point," Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, told CNN. "They can fight about it after the RNC or they can lift it after the RNC, but I want him to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over."
State law in Ohio allows for licensed firearm owners to wear their weapons in public. With the exception of a small "secure zone" inside and around the Quicken Loans Arena, residents, delegates and protesters are legally permitted to walk around the city -- including within its 1.7 square mile regulated "event zone" -- with any firearm not explicitly banned by the state.
Kasich, responding to the request, said: "Ohio governors do not have the power to arbitrarily suspend federal and state constitutional rights or state laws as suggested."
"The bonds between our communities and police must be reset and rebuilt -- as we're doing in Ohio -- so our communities and officers can both be safe. Everyone has an important role to play in that renewal," he said.
Earlier, he released a video offering his condolences in the wake of the Baton Rouge attack.
Loomis also said officers here would begin ramping up inspections and oversight over anyone who is holstering a weapon entering the downtown area, where the Republican convention is scheduled to begin on Monday.
"We are going to be looking very, very hard at anyone who has an open carry," he said. "An AR-15, a shotgun, multiple handguns. It's irresponsible of those folks -- especially right now -- to be coming downtown with open carry AR's or anything else. I couldn't care less if it's legal or not. We are constitutional law enforcement, we love the Constitution, support it and defend it, but you can't go into a crowded theater and scream fire. And that's exactly what they're doing by bringing those guns down there."
The first key test for law enforcement comes Monday, as the convention opens, when Citizens for Trump and Black on Black Crime, Inc., which has marched in the past with Black Lives Matter-affiliated protestors, are among the many groups that are set to protest.
Citizens for Trump is scheduled to hold a rally expected to attract more than a thousand people to Settler's Landing Park, less than a mile from where Republican delegates will be gathering at the Quicken Loans Arena.
"We've hired special forces teams for security," the group's executive director, Tim Selaty, told CNN last week, declining to specify who would provide that extra security. "The Secret Service is well aware of what we're doing and they're going to be provided with everything they need to work in tandem with the local local law enforcement."
Alfred Porter Jr., president of Black on Black Crime, Inc., a four-decade-old anti-violence group, told CNN it would not alter a planned demonstration Monday in Cleveland's downtown Public Square.
"Nothing has changed because I still feel the same way, our message will still be the same," Porter said on Sunday afternoon. "We refuse to let anybody who has a simplistic or violent or hateful message stop the type of message that we have been sending out for accountability. Our message is not to go out there and start murdering police officers."
Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, who is not in Cleveland, told CNN, "The movement began as a response to violence and a call to end violence. And that call remains as true today as they did yesterday and it will tomorrow."
The Cleveland Police Department did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Convention CEO Jeff Larson said that organizers remained confident in the security measures currently in place and did not expect Kasich to take any new action.
"The open carry laws in Ohio haven't changed recently, it's been in effect for quite some time, they've had a number of big events that have taken place with open carry without any issues," he told reporters Sunday afternoon. "They've been planning their security around that issue."
The union has also reached out to Police Chief Calvin Williams, asking that officers -- some of whom have been positioned alone and without vehicles -- be grouped together on their patrols, especially outside of the downtown security zones.
"We're going to be doing things differently (after today's attack)," Loomis said. "Right now, the chief of police thinks it's a good idea to have one officer without a car standing at a post in various intersections all around the city? Thirty blocks from downtown? I had a guy last night standing out there by himself without the benefit of protection of a police car. Or partner. That is absolute insanity to me. There is no reason for that. We are going to demand that the police chief -- at a minimum -- make sure that we have three officers working together, watching each other's backs."
I understand that this is an extremely emotional time. So I hope, that when the head of the Cleveland Police Union, when he regains control of his emotions and his senses, apologizes for his blatant suggestion that the democratically elected governor of a state should suspend the people's constitutional rights for the benefit of a group of people who are supposed to defend those rights. And if he's not willing to apologize and truly doesn't understand the gravity of what he's suggested and how wrong it is, then he should step down and leave the field of anything related to police work for the rest of his life.
The situation in Louisiana is horrible and there is no justification for it, but that doesn't make it okay for the President of Cleveland's Police Union to openly call for a blanket infringement on the Constitutional rights of the public that they are supposed to serve and protect. It's embarrassing to watch.
Yeah, that was really a bad call. The agents of enforcement should never been calling for the extra-judicial suspension of state or federal rights. That is the path of tyrants and coups.
The point of the rule of law is that you don't do things like that.
Hordini wrote: I understand that this is an extremely emotional time. So I hope, that when the head of the Cleveland Police Union, when he regains control of his emotions and his senses, apologizes for his blatant suggestion that the democratically elected governor of a state should suspend the people's constitutional rights for the benefit of a group of people who are supposed to defend those rights. And if he's not willing to apologize and truly doesn't understand the gravity of what he's suggested and how wrong it is, then he should step down and leave the field of anything related to police work for the rest of his life.
The situation in Louisiana is horrible and there is no justification for it, but that doesn't make it okay for the President of Cleveland's Police Union to openly call for a blanket infringement on the Constitutional rights of the public that they are supposed to serve and protect. It's embarrassing to watch.
As the president of the Union, it was part of his duty to ask as the Union is concerned about Officer Safety, Pay, and Benefits first. This is especially true if his membership is concerned and bringing it to him. He did exactly what he was suppose to do a the president of the Police Union.
Governor Kasich responded appropriately to the request as the leader of the executive branch of his state.
Jihadin wrote: About to start Open Carry. Using my holster I used on my deployments. Not sure which side arm I want to carry though. Thinking a 10mm or just go with a 45..
Be a rebel, forget modern weapons and use a pistol from the Napoleonic wars. Yes, you might only get two shots a minute, but if you make those shots count
Two shots a minute? Tut tut. Someone needs to work on their drills.
A good soldier should be able to fire three rounds a minute in any weather
Not according to a poster awhile back... a shot every 5 seconds...
A shot every 5 seconds? Not if you're drinking the stuff I drink!
Hordini wrote: I understand that this is an extremely emotional time. So I hope, that when the head of the Cleveland Police Union, when he regains control of his emotions and his senses, apologizes for his blatant suggestion that the democratically elected governor of a state should suspend the people's constitutional rights for the benefit of a group of people who are supposed to defend those rights. And if he's not willing to apologize and truly doesn't understand the gravity of what he's suggested and how wrong it is, then he should step down and leave the field of anything related to police work for the rest of his life.
The situation in Louisiana is horrible and there is no justification for it, but that doesn't make it okay for the President of Cleveland's Police Union to openly call for a blanket infringement on the Constitutional rights of the public that they are supposed to serve and protect. It's embarrassing to watch.
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
To be honest, it doesn't matter matter to me if either the KKK or the NBPP showed up armed. As long as they don't escalate things. If that were to happen(say they where to exchange fire), then it would set a president for future events, where it might make sense to "check your weapons at the door" kind of thing.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
Yeah, they are not even in the same ball park... To make such statements is just lying as no one could be that naive.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
Agreed. I'd note though the NBP are a completely different thing entirely than BLM. I'd put them more in the realm of some of some of the tamer white supremacist groups. While they aren't up to the standards of the real KKK, they have similar tactics to the modern girly version, but being more lame-if possible. The actual BP has disavowed them.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
NBPP aren't the same as BLM (although I agree with you that BLM isn't anything like the KKK.) BNPP is considered a hate group by the SPLC, but the SPLC considers basically all patriot groups like the Oathkeepers hate groups too, so I'm not sure it's appropriate to consider everything they claim without any critical analysis. To be clear, some of the groups they list are definitely hate groups, but some might not be. It seems like they rope a lot of pro-2nd amendment types into their hate group list.
Again agreed. They tend to have a very broad view of a hate group if it comes from the right.
Again, to be clear I don't in any way consider BLM to be a hate group, unless like me they hate vegetables with the white hot passion of a thousand burning sons, in which case they are my kind of guys.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.
I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).
The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.
None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.
Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.
I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).
Well, BLM is intended to be anti-police in a certain sense. Since it is the police treatment of blacks that they pretty much have a problem with and what caused the movement to form. Of course, anti-police in this sense meaning that the police need to change what they are doing, not as in officers need to be killed.
nkelsch wrote: The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.
None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.
Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)
With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.
I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).
Well, BLM is intended to be anti-police in a certain sense. Since it is the police treatment of blacks that they pretty much have a problem with and what caused the movement to form. Of course, anti-police in this sense meaning that the police need to change what they are doing, not as in officers need to be killed.
The biggest challenge BLM has to overcome, is that they were an organization the grew from a flawed interpretation of an event. (aka, "Hands up, don't shoot" in Ferguson).
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.
I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).
Well, BLM is intended to be anti-police in a certain sense. Since it is the police treatment of blacks that they pretty much have a problem with and what caused the movement to form. Of course, anti-police in this sense meaning that the police need to change what they are doing, not as in officers need to be killed.
The biggest challenge BLM has to overcome, is that they were an organization the grew from a flawed interpretation of an event. (aka, "Hands up, don't shoot" in Ferguson).
I'd put stuff like this higher up on the tier of challenges they have to overcome. As long as things like these continue to take place, they'll never be taken seriously.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.
I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).
Well, BLM is intended to be anti-police in a certain sense. Since it is the police treatment of blacks that they pretty much have a problem with and what caused the movement to form. Of course, anti-police in this sense meaning that the police need to change what they are doing, not as in officers need to be killed.
The biggest challenge BLM has to overcome, is that they were an organization the grew from a flawed interpretation of an event. (aka, "Hands up, don't shoot" in Ferguson).
I'd put stuff like this higher up on the tier of challenges they have to overcome. As long as things like these continue to take place, they'll never be taken seriously.
Yeah... that's pretty bad. "Pigs in a blanket, Fry 'em like bacon" chant is every where. They even had a "pork BBQ" event, outside of the Ferguson Police Dept a few times.
nkelsch wrote: The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.
None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.
Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)
With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.
There's more white on white violence than black on black violence
nkelsch wrote: The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.
None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.
Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)
With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.
And that justifies police illegal discrimination, overzealous policing and unjustified violence how? And what does it have to do with the generational income disparities and glass ceilings put up against classes of people? And Black on Black crime is somehow causing the educational disparities and judicial disparities we see which seem to be drawn along race-based lines?
That is absurd to compare the current valid issues facing minorities by our system of government and subtle racism in our society to say 'you don't get to tackle bigotry and discrimination until you are an educated, unified front and fix all your issues in your community first' and then when a group calls for 'unity of the black community' through the form of education and supporting black-owned organizations and businesses you label them as racists and hate groups as bad as the KKK.
nkelsch wrote: The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.
None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.
Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)
With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.
And that justifies police illegal discrimination, overzealous policing and unjustified violence how? And what does it have to do with the generational income disparities and glass ceilings put up against classes of people? And Black on Black crime is somehow causing the educational disparities and judicial disparities we see which seem to be drawn along race-based lines?
And... I don't think he typed that. You did.
That is absurd to compare the current valid issues facing minorities by our system of government and subtle racism in our society to say 'you don't get to tackle bigotry and discrimination until you are an educated, unified front and fix all your issues in your community first' and then when a group calls for 'unity of the black community' through the form of education and supporting black-owned organizations and businesses you label them as racists and hate groups as bad as the KKK.
The difficulty with that argument is that, there aren't protests about the level of BonB crime in inner cities which are geometric rates higher more great. While I agree, it looks like hypocrisy, especially when several of the key initial drivers were actually BG's and legally deserved to get wacked. To some it looks like BLM is defending criminals.
The difficulty with that argument is that, there aren't protests about the level of BonB crime in inner cities which are geometric rates higher more great. While I agree, it looks like hypocrisy, especially when several of the key initial drivers were actually BG's and legally deserved to get wacked. To some it looks like BLM is defending criminals.
The problem is that any black male killed by the police is defined as a criminal because he got shot by the police to certain outspoken people. Heck, we even had someone here in the thread on the guy who got shot in MN saying he was a 'serial criminal' because he was pulled over 56 times.
nkelsch wrote: The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.
None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.
Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)
With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.
And that justifies police illegal discrimination, overzealous policing and unjustified violence how? And what does it have to do with the generational income disparities and glass ceilings put up against classes of people? And Black on Black crime is somehow causing the educational disparities and judicial disparities we see which seem to be drawn along race-based lines?
And... I don't think he typed that. You did.
That is absurd to compare the current valid issues facing minorities by our system of government and subtle racism in our society to say 'you don't get to tackle bigotry and discrimination until you are an educated, unified front and fix all your issues in your community first' and then when a group calls for 'unity of the black community' through the form of education and supporting black-owned organizations and businesses you label them as racists and hate groups as bad as the KKK.
The difficulty with that argument is that, there aren't protests about the level of BonB crime in inner cities which are geometric rates higher more great. While I agree, it looks like hypocrisy, especially when several of the key initial drivers were actually BG's and legally deserved to get wacked. To some it looks like BLM is defending criminals.
There are plenty of local initiatives that work to decrease black on black crime in the cities. It's not like people in Chicago, for instance, don't care about all the murder that goes on in certain neighborhoods, it's just that the national media doesn't devote the time and effort to covering stuff like community centers and anti gang programs when they can just highlight the number of shootings or showcase a baby that was tragically gunned down in a cross fire, etc. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that goes on in your area of Texas that I don't hear about because I'm thousands of miles away and your local news isn't that important on a national scale.
The difficulty with that argument is that, there aren't protests about the level of BonB crime in inner cities which are geometric rates higher more great. While I agree, it looks like hypocrisy, especially when several of the key initial drivers were actually BG's and legally deserved to get wacked. To some it looks like BLM is defending criminals.
The problem is that any black male killed by the police is defined as a criminal because he got shot by the police to certain outspoken people. Heck, we even had someone here in the thread on the guy who got shot in MN saying he was a 'serial criminal' because he was pulled over 56 times.
BLM started with Martin and Brown. Martin was killed because he was trying to kill someone else. Similarly Brown was trying to beat the police officer to death. They need to pick and choose their symbols better.
I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that goes on in your area of Texas that I don't hear about because I'm thousands of miles away and your local news isn't that important on a national scale.
No that can't be right, because if its news in taxes, its news in Da World!!!! :-)
"Texas, at least we're not Florida" -our new state motto.
Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante who then tried to blame it on Martin. However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.
I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.
skyth wrote: Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante who then tried to blame it on Martin. However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.
I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.
I'm pretty sure that if's it was a white guy "grounding & pounding" at black dude... the black dude would be well within his rights to shoot the white dude...
Similarly, if a big white guy charges a black police officer, then that officer is well within his right to use his firearm.
So, I call BS on your hypothetical "if race was reverse, no one would be dead".
Obama also needs to watch which piles of gak he sticks his foot into. Comparing dead street brawling drug users to his imaginary son and sending representitives to funerals of criminals only stokes the troubles. Just out of curiosity, did he send any reps to the funerals of the cops?
skyth wrote: Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante
Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.
who then tried to blame it on Martin.
Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.
However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.
Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it. They did however (NBC looking at you) conflate Zimmerman with a white guy. When found out they coined the new phrase "white hispanic." if Zimmerman's name Zamora it would never have even made the local news.
I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.
Strangely if I am trying to beat a police officer to death I do believe the cop if going to shoot me.
Strangely if some guy is trying beat my head into the ground I do believe I am going to empty the mag into their face. Also if you go for my pizza.
skyth wrote: Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante
Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.
who then tried to blame it on Martin.
Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.
However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.
Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.
It is as substantiated (heck, even more so) as your claims.
I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.
Strangely if I am trying to beat a police officer to death I do believe the cop if going to shoot me.
Strangely if some guy is trying beat my head into the ground I do believe I am going to empty the mag into their face. Also if you go for my pizza.
I bet they wouldn't have even stopped him if he wasn't black. Same as Martin. The guy who murdered him wouldn't have even looked twice at him if he wasn't black.
It is as substantiated (heck, even more so) as your claims.
I made no claims that were contested. It is uncontested that Martin attacked Captain Loser. Further the jury did not convict.
I bet they wouldn't have even stopped him if he wasn't black.
He was walking in the middle of a 4 lane road blocking traffic and IIRC the call came in about him choking the store owner, so yes, they generally do.
Same as Martin. The guy who murdered him wouldn't have even looked twice at him if he wasn't black.
good chance you are right. You don't get to kill someone for looking at you though, even if its Captain Loser.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, this is why you don't use these two. Plenty of cases of real abuse-unfortunately.
o
There was a call about Brown along with a video that later came out, showing him roughing up someone who maybe weighed 100 lbs during the course of a theft from a convenience store.
It is as substantiated (heck, even more so) as your claims.
I made no claims that were contested. It is uncontested that Martin attacked Captain Loser. Further the jury did not convict.
.
Actually, it was contested that Martin attacked the idiot. That the jury didn't convict him doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty as all heck. Martin IS a good example of why BLM....As he was considered a suspect by the idiot just because he was black. Then the idiot started a fight, started losing, so like the coward that he was, he blew Martin away.
And the idiot started chasing Martin even after being told not to. That IS starting a fight. I don't care what the laws are.
skyth wrote: Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante
Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.
who then tried to blame it on Martin.
Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.
However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.
Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.
It is as substantiated (heck, even more so) as your claims.
I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.
Strangely if I am trying to beat a police officer to death I do believe the cop if going to shoot me.
Strangely if some guy is trying beat my head into the ground I do believe I am going to empty the mag into their face. Also if you go for my pizza.
I bet they wouldn't have even stopped him if he wasn't black. Same as Martin. The guy who murdered him wouldn't have even looked twice at him if he wasn't black.
The guy was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Is that not good enough? Or are you saying he should be charged without a fair trial?
Actually, it was contested that Martin attacked the idiot. That the jury didn't convict him doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty as all heck. Martin IS a good example of why BLM....As he was considered a suspect by the idiot just because he was black. Then the idiot started a fight, started losing, so like the coward that he was, he blew Martin away.
And the idiot started chasing Martin even after being told not to. That IS starting a fight. I don't care what the laws are.
You know, none of what you state as fact is actually fact. The prosecution attempted to prove it as fact, and failed miserably.
Actually, it was contested that Martin attacked the idiot.
ok. Fair point. Please cite where it was disputed by whom that Martin attacked. No witness supported your statement, nor did the evidence.
That the jury didn't convict him doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty as all heck.
True. It does not support guilt however.
Martin IS a good example of why BLM....As he was considered a suspect by the idiot just because he was black.
And then he attacked the guy. and then he died. Moral of the story, don't attack fat half Cubans in the rain. They can't fight so they'll just shoot you.
Then the idiot started a fight, started losing, so like the coward that he was, he blew Martin away.
Supported by literally no evidence whatsoever. You're wrong. The aliens came and gave them a probe. Zimmerman had to shoot him to save the world. Hey my argument has as many facts as yours does.
And the idiot started chasing Martin even after being told not to. That IS starting a fight.
You have an interesting, but completely illegal view of the definition of battery.
I don't care what the laws are.
Clearly. And thats part of the problem. Pick better cases. There are many out there.
Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.
Easy E wrote: Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.
A bunch -again unfortunately.
Just the ones in the big spotlight:
-Freddie Grey: somehow died in police van.
-Walter Scott: shot in back ON CAMERA
-Philando Castile: CHLer shot by overzealous officer while sitting in car
Easy E wrote: Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.
Instead of focussing on a single case we could just use the abundance of empirical evidence that exists.
A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.
The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.
The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones.
The counterintuitive results provoked debate after the study was posted on Monday, mostly about the volume of police encounters and the scope of the data. Mr. Fryer emphasizes that the work is not the definitive analysis of police shootings, and that more data would be needed to understand the country as a whole. This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police.
Easy E wrote: Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.
A bunch -again unfortunately.
Just the ones in the big spotlight:
-Freddie Grey: somehow died in police van.
-Walter Scott: shot in back ON CAMERA
-Philando Castile: CHLer shot by overzealous officer while sitting in car
A judge just acquitted a fourth officer in the Freddie Gray case.
Easy E wrote: Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.
Instead of focussing on a single case we could just use the abundance of empirical evidence that exists.
A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.
The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.
The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones.
The counterintuitive results provoked debate after the study was posted on Monday, mostly about the volume of police encounters and the scope of the data. Mr. Fryer emphasizes that the work is not the definitive analysis of police shootings, and that more data would be needed to understand the country as a whole. This work focused only on what happens once the police have stopped civilians, not on the risk of being stopped at all. Other research has shown that blacks are more likely to be stopped by the police.
Of course, wasn't there just a Snopes link a little higher in this thread showing that that study was seriously flawed as far as the killing part? I believe it used the officer saying it was a good shoot to determine if it was a good shoot or not.
skyth wrote: Of course, wasn't there just a Snopes link a little higher in this thread showing that that study was seriously flawed as far as the killing part? I believe it used the officer saying it was a good shoot to determine if it was a good shoot or not.
Yes, what that Times article references is not a "study" but a working paper in a non-peer reviewed journal about specializing in economy-based research. It was anonymously funded, the methodology has been called into question by numerous experts, and it was written by an economist with no background in criminal justice.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
Interesting the way you inflate things. So the NBPP is a hate group, they hate whites, jews, and anyone that isn't black. Just because they don't burn crosses, and haven't lynched anyone that we know of, doesn't make them any less of a detestable entity. If the NBPP was large enough and powerful enough to perform similar acts, like burning crosses and or lynch white people, I believe they would. Just listen to them at their rally's where they talk about "killing crackers" and similar rhetoric.
My statement makes total sense, and I will state it again, the NBPP is the black version of the KKK.
generalgrog wrote: The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?
Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.
Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...
have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.
I never said that BLM was = to KKK....
I think that BLM is inherently racist, but not as bad as the NBPP.
I know that's the BLM talking point, but it's really not insulting. Of course Black lives matter, but so do white, indian, Asian, and hispanic, etc.etc.
I attend the largest African American church organization in the world. I participated in the "Black Lives Matter Sunday" see link below.
Saying Black Lives Matter is not saying that some lives matter more than others. Nobody is saying that not all lives matter. What people are saying is Black Lives are disproportionately effected by poverty and racial profiling by police.
Saying All Lives Matter means you are either wilfully ignoring these facts or you just do not understand what is going on.
skyth wrote: Saying 'All lives matter' really misses the point of Black live matter and is actually rather insulting.
What is Black Lives Matters about though? We see tons of bad press about it, how they seem to push for violence. What is their core message though. Getting the police targetting of unarmed black citizens to stop?
I found this the other day, thought it was incredibly enlightening.
From what the Washington Post was able gather from media reports from around the country, they have a description of every shoot, name, date, location, and the events leading to it. They also built in filters, so you can break down who was shot, what was happening at the time, etc...
When you break it down to Black Americans, they found 258 cases. Then you can select if they were armed with a deadly weapon, unarmed, etc... If you select unarmed, it brings the number down to 38. Then you can add another filter, where you can select if they were in the process of attacking the police, or someone else, or not. That brings you to 19 instances where police shot someone, who was unarmed and not attacking someone. 3 of those instances where bystanders who were shot while police were engaging another situation. That leaves 16 cases. Of those 258 though, 183 of them took place when the person shot was in the process of committing violence. When people throw out those "disproportionate" numbers, they never address those parts of the numbers. How many of the shootings were actually warranted.
Now I'm not saying this list is authoritative. Other media agencies have different numbers(such as total killed), but none that I've found made the effort to describe the situation involved with each one. Even acknowledging some variance in the numbers, I find it really hard to believe that such a small number of unarmed black people being shot by police when they were not posing a threat to anyone, to be worth everything we are going through.
This does not mean I am giving the police a pass, or anything of the like. A bad shoot is a bad shoot, and should always be punished appropriately. We're talking though, riots, murders, etc... for what, maybe two dozen instances of these bad shoots? If BLM wants to fix something, they need to do like the Dallas Chief said, and start in their own damn communities. When you are doing triage, you don't ignore the severed limb, to take care of a small laceration. Complain all you want about how many Black Americans are killed by police. The fact is, Black American's disproportionately kill more people then any other racial category in the country, way beyond anything else. This simple fact means there are going to be more Black Americans on the receiving end of police fire. That is why the numbers are scewed more then anything else, and until that issue gets ACKNOWLEDGED and fixed, nothing is going to change, for the better at least.
Anything dealing with raw numbers is misleading and a bit dishonest. You have to deal with numbers adjusted for percentage of the total population.
The core tenets of BLM is that Blacks are disproportionately targeted by police, are more likely to be convicted and are subject to harsher penalties than whites for the same crime. This is an issue and needs to stop.
I'm just going to make that my catch-all reply for everything and anything.
- Do something about 22 veteran suicides a day? No, all lives matter.
- Raising money for childhood cancer? No, all lives matter.
- Earthquake somewhere? All lives matter.
- Waste time and money on a memorial for some cops that got killed? All lives matter.
- Military doesn't get paid enough and has to use food stamps? All lives matter.
Dreadwinter wrote: Saying Black Lives Matter is not saying that some lives matter more than others. Nobody is saying that not all lives matter. What people are saying is Black Lives are disproportionately effected by poverty and racial profiling by police.
Saying All Lives Matter means you are either wilfully ignoring these facts or you just do not understand what is going on.
Please don't try to educate me on what BLM means. Did you not even read my post from above? It started out fine, but it has morphed into something else than what it started as.
I supported it at first, but I can't support it now.
It would be better if the slogan was "Black Lives Matter TOO"
Dreadwinter wrote: Saying Black Lives Matter is not saying that some lives matter more than others. Nobody is saying that not all lives matter. What people are saying is Black Lives are disproportionately effected by poverty and racial profiling by police.
Saying All Lives Matter means you are either wilfully ignoring these facts or you just do not understand what is going on.
Please don't try to educate me on what BLM means. Did you not even read my post from above? It started out fine, but it has morphed into something else than what it started as.
I supported it at first, but I can't support it now.
It would be better if the slogan was "Black Lives Matter TOO"
GG
You posted it while I was writing and posting mine. Either way, you are still wrong because you are paying attention to the people at the fringe of the movement instead of the core. All of these terrible things that have happened have all been denounced because they have been carried out by extremists.
You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?
You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?
Second amendment/gun owners.
Yes, that is it. Those persecuted second amendment/gun owners.....
Blaming the whole because of the few, damn right. Just like BLM is getting flak because of a few nutjobs and just like Muslims are gak on because of radicals. I get lumped in with psychos just because of an object I own.
You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?
Second amendment/gun owners.
Yes, that is it. Those persecuted second amendment/gun owners.....
Blaming the whole because of the few, damn right. Just like BLM is getting flak because of a few nutjobs and just like Muslims are gak on because of radicals. I get lumped in with psychos just because of an object I own.
Not really. Guns =/= Gun Owners. Blaming guns for something is not blaming gun owners. Asking for heavier restrictions on the purchasing of firearms is not the same as either of those things. So not even remotely the same. Either way, this is not the thread for that, so lets stop that now.
djones520 wrote: Now I'm not saying this list is authoritative. Other media agencies have different numbers(such as total killed), but none that I've found made the effort to describe the situation involved with each one. Even acknowledging some variance in the numbers, I find it really hard to believe that such a small number of unarmed black people being shot by police when they were not posing a threat to anyone, to be worth everything we are going through.
Shootings by police certainly cause the issue to spark, but it isn't just about shootings, but about being pulled over more often, being searched more often and so on.
If I'd been stopped seven times in a single year, and most of those times were just because I was driving a nicer car than people assume my skin colour should have, then I'd be annoyed enough to march, whether it was 1, 16 or 1,600 people that got pointlessly shot. And by the way, that story of being stopped seven times comes from the personal experience of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican.
Tim Scott admits the first time was for a busted head light (I've been pulled over for that too) and other times were for speeding. He claims (can't find anything to substantiate it) other times were for 'being in the wrong neighborhood'.
Honestly, I trust his story as much as I trust other congress critters (not much at all). Maybe it is true,maybe it is embellished and part true.
I have a brother who is a cop in poor areas of Houston. He, and any cop will tell you some vehicles don't generally belong in some neighborhoods and the vehicle WILL attract attention. At night it is almost impossible to tell the race of a driver with windows up until you pull them over.
kronk wrote: So...no shootings or signs of violence from anyone so far, correct?
You mean besides diehard conservatives watching Trump last night and offing themselves?
""I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
-Ghost Nixon.
You are blaming the whole because of the few. Where else is that happening right now?
Second amendment/gun owners.
Yes, that is it. Those persecuted second amendment/gun owners.....
When you have newspapers publishing names and addresses of gun owners, yes it does amount to persecution and putting a target on gun owners.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Tim Scott admits the first time was for a busted head light (I've been pulled over for that too) and other times were for speeding. He claims (can't find anything to substantiate it) other times were for 'being in the wrong neighborhood'.
Honestly, I trust his story as much as I trust other congress critters (not much at all). Maybe it is true,maybe it is embellished and part true.
I have a brother who is a cop in poor areas of Houston. He, and any cop will tell you some vehicles don't generally belong in some neighborhoods and the vehicle WILL attract attention. At night it is almost impossible to tell the race of a driver with windows up until you pull them over.
I have often thought it was crazy to have lone cops pull over vehicles at night for minor infractions. Do they do that in Houston?
CptJake wrote: Tim Scott admits the first time was for a busted head light (I've been pulled over for that too) and other times were for speeding. He claims (can't find anything to substantiate it) other times were for 'being in the wrong neighborhood'.
Honestly, I trust his story as much as I trust other congress critters (not much at all). Maybe it is true,maybe it is embellished and part true.
I have a brother who is a cop in poor areas of Houston. He, and any cop will tell you some vehicles don't generally belong in some neighborhoods and the vehicle WILL attract attention. At night it is almost impossible to tell the race of a driver with windows up until you pull them over.
I have often thought it was crazy to have lone cops pull over vehicles at night for minor infractions. Do they do that in Houston?
Really depends. From my conversations with my brother and Son2 (criminal science major who did like a year patrolling with county and municipal cops in the Dahlonega, GA area) and buddies who are on various LEAs, is that the cops tend to know what fits in and does not fit in at certain times and places. When something does not fit in, they look hard, and if they find the minor infraction make the stop. The stop is made really to see what is actually going on. If nothing, usually a warning is given. If something, they take what ever the appropriate action is. Proactive policing. Race tends to not have anything to do with it (again, at night it is almost impossible to tell race until the stop is made).
The thing I always worried about in the lone cop scenario is someone getting pulled over and attempting an ambush.
I got pulled over, for a bad light, on a deserted road at about 2 am by a lone cop and immediately turned on my inside light and had my hands on the wheel.
I couldn't help but think the balls of steel it took to handle a job like that on a nightly basis.
djones520 wrote: Now I'm not saying this list is authoritative. Other media agencies have different numbers(such as total killed), but none that I've found made the effort to describe the situation involved with each one. Even acknowledging some variance in the numbers, I find it really hard to believe that such a small number of unarmed black people being shot by police when they were not posing a threat to anyone, to be worth everything we are going through.
Shootings by police certainly cause the issue to spark, but it isn't just about shootings, but about being pulled over more often, being searched more often and so on.
If I'd been stopped seven times in a single year, and most of those times were just because I was driving a nicer car than people assume my skin colour should have, then I'd be annoyed enough to march, whether it was 1, 16 or 1,600 people that got pointlessly shot. And by the way, that story of being stopped seven times comes from the personal experience of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican.
And it is wrong... but how do we combat that? It's a lot deeper of an issue then "he's black, so we've gotta be dicks, because white power." Even if it was just that, stomping out racism... just doesn't work. A society can change the norms over time regarding it, but it is not an overnight fix, and acting in a manner which draws negative attention to yourself isn't going to help the slow fix.
djones520 wrote: Now I'm not saying this list is authoritative. Other media agencies have different numbers(such as total killed), but none that I've found made the effort to describe the situation involved with each one. Even acknowledging some variance in the numbers, I find it really hard to believe that such a small number of unarmed black people being shot by police when they were not posing a threat to anyone, to be worth everything we are going through.
Shootings by police certainly cause the issue to spark, but it isn't just about shootings, but about being pulled over more often, being searched more often and so on.
If I'd been stopped seven times in a single year, and most of those times were just because I was driving a nicer car than people assume my skin colour should have, then I'd be annoyed enough to march, whether it was 1, 16 or 1,600 people that got pointlessly shot. And by the way, that story of being stopped seven times comes from the personal experience of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican.
And it is wrong... but how do we combat that? It's a lot deeper of an issue then "he's black, so we've gotta be dicks, because white power." Even if it was just that, stomping out racism... just doesn't work. A society can change the norms over time regarding it, but it is not an overnight fix, and acting in a manner which draws negative attention to yourself isn't going to help the slow fix.
We can examine what expectations and responsibilities we put on police departments, how we train police officers and what kind of policing we put into practice. I the current system of policing is creating injustices and social unrest then we should probably figure out a way to do it better. If nobody protests enough to make the issue important enough to be dealt with in a practical and responsible manner then it doesn't get fixed.
Protest movements are always vulnerable to radicalization and to providing cover for people to be unruly in irresponsible and counter productive ways. Look at the G8 summits, sure there's plenty of greivances that could be alleviated if the most powerful heads of state viewed those issues as important enough to work to resolve but that has no connection to masked protestors smashing windows for no reason but somehow the two go hand in hand.
I think it's great that members/supporters of BLM want to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of assembly in the pursuit of positive social and political change. I don't hold the actions of lone criminals against the majority of people who aren't criminals. BLM leadership can't stop individuals from using the movement as an excuse to commit crimes like murder and vandalism. I do think BLM leadership needs to do everything that it can in a constant and consistent vigilant effort to make sure their protests are done in a peaceful, civil manner because they have the greatest incentive to protect their movement from criminals because criminal behavior done in their name is the surest way to get their greivances dismissed/ignored and for greater measures of injustice to be meted out in response.
One thing to think about here is that all of those guns on the street and no massive battle breaking out should strengthen the stand of the pro gun side.
CptJake wrote: Maybe it is true,maybe it is embellished and part true.
Yeah, maybe his story is embellished. But to dismiss all such claims, to claim that the experiences of many millions of black people that they are targeted because of their race... well that's another thing entirely. I don't think you or anyone else saying that all those stories are embellished. As such the problem has to be recognised.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: And it is wrong... but how do we combat that? It's a lot deeper of an issue then "he's black, so we've gotta be dicks, because white power." Even if it was just that, stomping out racism... just doesn't work. A society can change the norms over time regarding it, but it is not an overnight fix, and acting in a manner which draws negative attention to yourself isn't going to help the slow fix.
Yeah, I think that's fair. I think we've talked before about the combative stance of BLM probably hurts more than it helps. What's needed is outreach.
Perhaps a few years ago there was a general ignoring of the issue, and so the attention seeking and aggressive approach of BLM worked. But now everyone is recognising the problem, so maybe it's time for BLM to change its approach.
CptJake wrote: Maybe it is true,maybe it is embellished and part true.
Yeah, maybe his story is embellished. But to dismiss all such claims, to claim that the experiences of many millions of black people that they are targeted because of their race... well that's another thing entirely. I don't think you or anyone else saying that all those stories are embellished. As such the problem has to be recognised.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: And it is wrong... but how do we combat that? It's a lot deeper of an issue then "he's black, so we've gotta be dicks, because white power." Even if it was just that, stomping out racism... just doesn't work. A society can change the norms over time regarding it, but it is not an overnight fix, and acting in a manner which draws negative attention to yourself isn't going to help the slow fix.
Yeah, I think that's fair. I think we've talked before about the combative stance of BLM probably hurts more than it helps. What's needed is outreach.
Perhaps a few years ago there was a general ignoring of the issue, and so the attention seeking and aggressive approach of BLM worked. But now everyone is recognising the problem, so maybe it's time for BLM to change its approach.
The topic of raising awareness always reminds me of Doug Stanhope's bit, spoilered for NSFW language.
whembly wrote: Nope... there were large groups (Minutemen, etc...) open caring. No issues that I could see.
I've seen photos of what looks like a couple thousand Bikers For Trump there too. Kind of like Patriot Guard Riders (and have a lot of the same folks involved in both).
djones520 wrote: Now I'm not saying this list is authoritative. Other media agencies have different numbers(such as total killed), but none that I've found made the effort to describe the situation involved with each one. Even acknowledging some variance in the numbers, I find it really hard to believe that such a small number of unarmed black people being shot by police when they were not posing a threat to anyone, to be worth everything we are going through.
Shootings by police certainly cause the issue to spark, but it isn't just about shootings, but about being pulled over more often, being searched more often and so on.
If I'd been stopped seven times in a single year, and most of those times were just because I was driving a nicer car than people assume my skin colour should have, then I'd be annoyed enough to march, whether it was 1, 16 or 1,600 people that got pointlessly shot. And by the way, that story of being stopped seven times comes from the personal experience of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican.
And it is wrong... but how do we combat that? It's a lot deeper of an issue then "he's black, so we've gotta be dicks, because white power." Even if it was just that, stomping out racism... just doesn't work. A society can change the norms over time regarding it, but it is not an overnight fix, and acting in a manner which draws negative attention to yourself isn't going to help the slow fix.
I'd be interested to know if it's really that common these days to get pulled over for being black in a nice car or if that's just an oddity.
At the end of the day, police should be interacting with different races according to how much crime those races commit. If blacks are committing more crimes, it's not racist that cops should have higher black statistics. Likewise, if you get a report that a certain model car car has been stolen and a witness says it was a black male, it'd be stupid to pull over a bunch of white females driving that model of car just to fill up your equal race and sex quota for the day.
No one cares or considers it sexist against men that account for 94% of people killed by the police because we just assume it's the men doing the bad stuff.
An interesting thought is 26% of people shot by police are black, yet blacks account for 47% of homicide offenders. Obviously I'm not saying that is THE key statistic or anything, but it's an interesting thought none the less.
