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...

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.

 feeder wrote:

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.

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

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.

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

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.

 Ouze wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

New Black Panther Party says to carry arms in Cleveland if legal
BY NED PARKER

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)

 feeder wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

New Black Panther Party says to carry arms in Cleveland if legal
BY NED PARKER

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

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

New Black Panther Party says to carry arms in Cleveland if legal
BY NED PARKER

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.

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.

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

New Black Panther Party says to carry arms in Cleveland if legal
BY NED PARKER

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 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...

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:



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.

so I call shananigans.

 redleger wrote:

Spoiler:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 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.

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:



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.

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.

Asterios wrote:

Spoiler:

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:



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?

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:



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:

Asterios wrote:

Spoiler:

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:



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.

 feeder wrote:

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.

Asterios wrote:



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?

 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..

Asterios wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Spoiler:

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:



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

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:



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?

 Easy E wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:



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?

Kill them all and let God sort them out?

 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.

 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..

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:



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?

Relapse wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:



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.