What can we learn from the Black Panthers?

We had almost 300 posts in the other thread to fight this out. Nothing here is new or adds anything to that which was already posted.

If you're looking for sympathy to your position, or those who disagree, you will find them here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=469347

-Sam

Actually, the premise of the OP is factually incorrect. The Black Panther protests did NOT cause the GCA'68, or any other gun control law. The shooting deaths of MLK and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 provided all the cover needed for the GCA'68. Further, the 'Black Panther protests' were actually limited to a singe event in a singular location - the California state legislature on May 2, 1967.

Also, let's keep in mind the historical context of the Black Panther Party efforts. They were demonized in the press as anti-white radicals (based upon their 'ten point program' manifesto contents), at a time when whites were a clear 70%+ majority in the country. They publicly called for armed resistance against the police. They also engaged in several running gun battles with police during the 1967-1968 time frame, which helped ensure that their 'armed protest' was seen as an overt threat and not as a simple political statement.

Drawing any form of parallel between recent events and the BPP activities of 1967-1968 is intellectually dishonest and fails the most cursory of examination.

Didn't the assassination of JFK begin the calls for gun control?

I don't remember exactly. I was only 16 at the time. I do know that prior to the middle 60's you could buy almost any sort of firearm through the mail.

The sporting magazines (Field & Stream, Sports Afield, etc.) were filled with ads for milsurp rifles, pistols, and revolvers.

I seem to remember 1911's for 25.00 or so. Long guns for about the same price. British Webley's for about 5.00.

Of course, minimum wage was a little over a dollar an hour.

Hey......it's fun being an old fart.

Travis, if you're serious about being interested in hearing people's opinions then you should change your poll questions entirely. As it is, you've created a very blatant "push poll" wherein the only reasonble answer is the one you obviously favor.

If you want to make this somewhat legitimate, rewrite your poll thusly:

a) Bearing arms at political functions in a manner that suggests the willingness to use force to achieve your political ends creates more enemies than friends. There is more to be lost in doing this than there is to be gained.

b) Bearing arms at political functions reminds politicians and the general public that the power does ultimately lie with the people and helps to awaken the populace to the extent and value of the freedoms we have here in this country. There is more to be gained by doing this than there is to be lost.

c) I see both sides equally or have no opinion but wish to be heard.

Couching the "options" you disfavor in tones that invite ridicule or in such a way as to drive the pollee towards a particular choice is a poorly veiled rhetorical device.

Did you come to learn something from your peers or to preach at them?

-Sam

Er, was it a different rbernie who posted this about the New Hampshire incident?

Click to expand...

You cherry picked from that thread, and left out the next sentence in my post:

The difference between that example and this is the nature of the protest, and the degree of perceived threat.

Click to expand...

I also was very careful to use the term 'reputedly', because (as I have documented above) I do not hold to that world view. I believe that the CONTEXT of the BPP protest made it very different from today's protests, and that the 1968 shooting deaths of two very prominent public figures is what allowed the anti-black power (southern Democrat) coalition pass what became known as the GCA'68. Does your sole knowledge of the event and its context come from my post? That would be, um, unfortunate.

I am dismayed that you seem intent upon prosecuting a specific view by misrepresenting my own statements.

The Black Panthers' decision to openly arm themselves during political protest terrified the public and set off a wave of gun control, including the end of open carry in California by Governor Ronald Reagan.

Click to expand...

This was a play (by both sides) right out of the Reconstruction South. Earlier, even, going back to Nat Turner and beyond. The idea of an armed BLACK uprising has long been a firebrand waved to scare folks into one kind of action or another.

In this current situation, we're talking about a widespread, grassroots, avowedly peacable form of action at least suggests itself to represent a far wider swath of society than the Black Panthers ever did. (Unless you feel that they spoke for their entire race. Maybe even so.) Of course, I'm extrapolating an entire movement from a couple of scattered incidents, just as you have done with the Black Panthers and CA.

I can see laws being passed in certain areas to forbid this kind of behavior -- though many of those places already forbid the carrying of arms, or certainly the open carry of them. I can see laws being passed in some areas specifically to protect this kind of action as a 2nd A and free speach issue. In the end, the practicality of it doesn't matter much as (as was posted in the previous thread) there is already a practice in effect that the President's location is considered protected federal ground or some such wording, and he will certainly never be threatened directly by any of these people.

But will there be a public outcry for more gun control (or, more importantly, legislative action on it) because of a few peacable demonstrators like this? No.

-Sam

Today's visible displays of firearms at public speeches are of a totally different context from 1967/1968.

No threat of violence, none whatsoever. Merely a demonstration of a right.

No history of hostile or intimidating behavior by this present group; no speeches calling for violence.

The only purpose is in making the point to a known anti-gun activist that there are rights which are superior to his opinions.

IOW, no valid comparison at all.

I think the major diffrence is that the guns in questions where protests, while guns for the Black Panthers where at the actual Rally itself.

Could you have come up with any more inapplicable poll options?

Could you have come up with any more inapplicable poll options?

Click to expand...

If you can lead people to start out on "your side" by giving them no reasonable alternative than to choose your favored response, then you can launch your arguement from an apparent (if fallacious) position of majority.

Ironically, when he's given folks no reasonable choice but to agree with him, he's still losing 7-12!





-Sam

[EDIT: Oooops! 7-13...]
[EDIT: Oh crap. 7-14 ... let's just say "and counting."]

Found a picture of the Phoenix Gun Toter on another forum.

I think there is some validity to the question.

The poll is not that great.


In the 1960s you saw armed demonstrations. You saw blacks rioting around the nation, many disarmed. You had the cold war, and the soviets could clearly take advantage of the situation and arm many groups from the anti-war protesters to the militant blacks. Not just blacks but many minorities, Cesar Chavez was doing his strikes and boycotts at the time.
The hippie element was ideologically compatible with much of the socialist/communist doctrine. Take from your productive neighbors and "share" to support those without wealth (or creating any.) Other large segments of the population were simply joining the various political hatred groups as a result of the draft and Vietnam War.

There was many elements of society with separate ideologies that could have very quickly formed an insurgency that could hide and gain support from a significant percentage of the population. If the Soviets helped such an insurgency form they could have accomplished the exact thing the Americans accomplished doing the very same thing in Afghanistan in the 80's. The toppling of the Soviet Union through the US supported Afghanistan insurgency.
You may have seen the toppling of the USA through the Soviet supported insurgency.
The US government certainly saw the threat, and even used illegal methods to combat it.


The Black panthers legally marching while armed on a capital, resulted in immediate passage of state level laws (not just California, but at least Oregon, and Washington state as well) prohibiting the ability to do so in the future.
Before that Open Carry was legal.

Consider the California "Assault Weapon" ban of the mid 90s proceeded, inspired, and was directly responsible for the national level ban. I think it would be quite shortsighted to imagine the perceived need to legally prohibit armed assembly in light of the Black Panthers and similar groups, did not significantly influence the creation and passage of the GCA of 1968.
The recent assassinations would have just added momentum to arms restriction talks already going on amongst the legislators.
The government wanted to control the RKBA and legal possession of arms to minimize threats to itself.

In fact programs like COINTELPRO by the FBI were actively trying to destroy numerous groups like the Black Panthers, or virtually any group that could pose any threat whatsoever of any race or ideology. Turning them against each other, using prosecutions and legislation, working to destroy them from within and without. Even internal spies to create drama between members and encourage internal assassinations.
The GCA would greatly help such programs in targeting any perceived armed threats as most movement leaders had previously been arrested as part of the movement, and were often felons as a result.

The GCA of 1968 established many things that enabled direct government oversight of arms, prohibited felons (so anyone of any group only needed to be prosecuted once to never legally be able to carry again) amongst other things that would limit the capability of any large group to be armed.
So it gave direct federal government power to deny anyone viewed as a threat the RKBA.
A very powerful tool in combating any potential insurgency or uprising.


So I most certainly would not consider the GCA solely a result of the assassinations. In fact I would consider those to merely be acts towards the end which enabled already long discussed and desired restrictions to be implemented with little opposition.
Much like the antis pounce after any gun related massacre in an attempt to pass what they already desire in modern times.



The guy armed with a handgun walking around with a sign that was essentially quoting a call to assassinate tyrants by a founding father was a theat. A threat arguably intended to be protected by the Constitution, but a threat nonetheless. Such threats make the targets of those threats scared. Legislators scared of physical force tend to arm themselves better (with better or more capable security details, body guards, and larger budgets and freedoms for such forces), and try to to disarm those scaring them.
Which results in a reduction of gun rights for everyone else.

The Phoenix display may not have had the same threat as in the New Hampshire incident, but it comes shortly after, likely inspired by that very incident.

IIRC my history correctly; the Black Panthers were active proponents of armed resistance to government in the event that their policies were not agreed to. The current situation involving people carrying firearms at political events is not so much an open suggestion of armed violence but is people demonstrating the rights they have and wish to continue to have. I actually believe these individuals carrying firearms while remaining peaceful may be one the best demonstrations aimed at a freeze or reduction on increasing gun control legislation in a long time. They are demonstrating people can peaceably assemble and some can even have "evil black rifles" about without turning into crazed lunatics.

The Black Panther protests did NOT cause the GCA'68, or any other gun control law.

Click to expand...

The Mulford Act, signed into law by Gov. Reagan in 1967, was intended to stop open carry by Black Panthers.

Tinpig

Point taken - I was referring to Federal law. Good catch.


----

ETA - it's probably worth nothing that the Mulford Act was not a response to the specific BPP protest but to prior activities of the BPP, and certainly their conduct on 2 May 1967 did not help the cause of blocking it.

I agree with Zoogster.

Also, I've heard it been said here that the difference from the Black Panthers is that there is no threat in the recent incidences. Well, to that I say "so far" and "barely". These guys who brought their guns seem to be setting the stage for a dude down the road who's not fully understanding the concept here. The dude will have an IQ of about 99. That dude shows up to a Presidential event with a gun, sagging pants, tattoos and missing teeth. I will then expect a complete 180 turn from the people who support open carrying rifles at a Presidential venue. After all, the difference from the Panthers is the lack of being threatening, right?

The Constitution doesn't say that the person bearing arms must be intelligent, clean shaven and wearing khaki slacks. There is an argument that "it's ok as long as it's legal". However, that argument works only if the gun toter "gets it". Let's be real.

The number one thing that these recent open carriers have opened my eyes to is how much many of our members here sound like they're reading straight off the Brady website.

Those choices are, to say the least, selective.

Found a picture of the Phoenix Gun Toter on another forum.

Click to expand...

There might have been more than one guy carrying a rifle that day.

Here is some video of the individual in the photo above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWVaAXHf-bA

Now, if you can get past the biased bed-wetting of Rick Sanchez and Ed Henry, you'll hear Ed claim (@ 2:19) that there was in fact another, additional gentleman, not an African-American, at the rally that had a rifle slung over his shoulder. That is, if you can believe anything that is reported from that network.

What the heck is wrong with our polling counter application?
Right now it's displaying what approximately 120% of all respondants believe.



-Sam