Gun Rights in Low Income Urban Neighborhoods

[Panzerschwein]

Hello everyone. I just ran across a very interesting article on Vice. It describes the program "Black Guns Matter" and talks about it's founder, Maj Toure.

http://www.vice.com/read/urban-gun-violence-as-seen-by-a-black-second-amendment-activist

I personal think this is a very great program. Face it: the hood has plenty of guns. Am I saying that's a good or bad thing? No I'm not. I'm saying that there are plenty of young people in those areas that probably aren't getting the required safety training and information about the weapons on the street that they see and possibly handle daily. Let's not sugar coat that. Having a program like this that teaches people not only about proper firearms safety but also 2nd amendment rights from early on in these areas can only be a good thing. This way the guns out there will be treated with greater respect and (hopefully) only in legitimate self defense. That's what this is all about. It seems like a much more effective way to reach people in these areas than Hunter Safety courses or NRA cartoon pamphlets

This man is doing great work. What do you think about this program?

 

[RavenTai]

Self defence is a natural right, the tools to defend yourself come with it.

Inner city residents in poor neighborhoods need that more than just about any other demographic, unfortunately law abiding citizens in the neighborhoods are the most disarmed, giving gangs and thugs unlimited power.

Anything that promotes safety training and arming law abiding Americans is a good thing in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Grumulkin]

The way I see it, the major problems:

1. The multitudes bereft of common sense who despite all the talk they can't have failed to hear don't understand that they will never get guns and other weapons out of the hands of criminals and that the criminals at times have been the governments that are supposed to protect them.

2. The multitudes that don't understand that deterioriation of integrity and morals is the problem behind the violence of all kinds.

So, what Maj Toure is doing is good as far as it goes but doesn't get to the root of the problem.

Interestingly, no one wants their own bull gored. They have learned in Colorado that a periphery of crime has come up around dispensaries of recreational marijuana but they won't do anything about it and other states follow in their footsteps. Videos/movies are considered great educational tools and yet it's ignored by most that education in violence is encouraged by the trash out of Hollywood. What ought to happen is to have the trash made illegal, make marijuana illegal again everywhere and bring back prohibition but, I know, no one wants their own bull gored.

I lived in Mexico back in the 1960s and 1970s. Even with supposedly respectable people, bribes, thefts, cheating, etc. was extremely common. When you have a populace that in general excuses those things in themselves, the result is a deterioration of the moral standing of the population. Yes, it saddens me that the drug cartels have made Mexico an increasingly dangerous place to be but it's something they brought on themselves and we by the same stupidity are going in the same direction.

By the way, firearm ownership in Mexico by and large is illegal and yet about anyone who wants one has one. Mexico also has no death penalty.

 

[Acera]

The left has no interest in empowering any of it's subjects in the inner-cities.

It has worked hard for decades to keep them inline, under the direction (read ==> enslavement if you like) of 'community leaders' and voting as a unified block, can't change your tune now. Gun control legislation has had a not so secret bias toward the minority community since the 60's. If they looked at gun laws the same way they look at voting and immigration laws, most would have been repealed by now.


The idea is a solid one, but you will find an established bias against it.


Remember, it is about control.



.

 

[grampajack]

Black Guns Matter is about training. We've been going for a year, but because of incidents with law enforcement over the last six months, it's picked up a lot of steam. We're getting much more attention. The ratcheting up is both good and bad. It's bad because it's due to murders. It's good because it means more information is getting into the hood.

Sounds to me like they're training to "defend" themselves against police. I don't see how this is any different than the standard black lives matter nonsense. For all intents and purposes, it sounds like this guy is essentially the training division for his local BLM movement.

Unspeakable numbers of black on black gangland murders, often with innocents being targeted, and they're only concern is with cops. Shameful. Just shameful.

 

[azrocks]

So, what Maj Toure is doing is good as far as it goes but doesn't get to the root of the problem.

Better let Maj know he's responsible for solving all the problems of black Americans instead of just doing his small part. He probably didn't get the memo.

Personally, I feel what he's doing is great, and no doubt his work will inspire others. The lessons he's teaching go far beyond firearms... independence, self-sufficiency, pride in accomplishment, concern for others... the fundamentals often lacking in poor inner city environments.

Just to put things in perspective here, slavery ended ~150 years ago. In the grand scheme of things, that isn't much time for an entire race of people to peacefully integrate after being shipped here in shackles. It always amazes me when people seem surprised that black communities have problems.

But alas, we can't undo slavery. So what can we do? Maybe give a guy like this well-deserved credit for making a change, even if it is a small one.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The recent spurt in gun violence has been isolated to three large urban areas; the rest of the country continues to enjoy the historic 20 year decline. The irony is the large urban areas have the local option gun restrictions the anti-gunners want to make nationwide.

Gun control legislation has had a not so secret bias toward the minority community since the 60's.

Back that up to at least the 1890s: Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941)
Justice Buford of the Florida Supreme Court noted in his concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control statute:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in the State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers .... The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied .... there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people because it has generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and nonenforceable if contested.

Although the language of the Florida law appeared race-neutral, the intent and enforcement was race-biased. The target population (migrant workers) did not have the legal standing to challenge the law in a Florida court.

 

[TimSr]

When you have a populace that in general excuses those things in themselves, the result is a deterioration of the moral standing of the population.

Generally what a kid sees as "normal" while he is growing up is accepted as a regular and expected part of life. We call that "culture". Changing a culture must come from within the culture. Hood rats killing people in the hood is expected and accepted. "Outsiders" like police killing hood rats is not. Just like the rest of America, law abiding people in the hood need to protect themselves from the non-law abiding. No politician or law enforcement agency can affect the ghetto culture, and efforts to do so are often viewed as outside interference. When knocking some old lady out is considered cool and funny by one's peers, punishment for the act does little to change the mentality. Being punished is even more "cool". Changes must be driven from within. These kinds of acts need to be demonized within the culture, and not covered up and excused because of some perceived injustice that politicians have pounded into the heads of ignorant people who never suffered it. For some reason, the people who know all about slavery do not know when the Civil War was fought, who was in it, who won, and how many died. There is no "legacy of slavery". That is the scapegoat for personal failures. Today, immigrants from Africa do better in school, are generally more successful, and have stronger families than native born Americans, just like many other immigrant groups. It's about the culture. If Maj Toure is promoting self defense as personal responsibility, and is really about standing against crime, maybe he will have some small influence on the culture by being one example.

 

[D94R]

OP, you said it yourself...'the hood'.

The hood doesn't care about gun safety. They only care about how they look when they selfie themselves with their gats.

Anything with "Black XXX Matters" in it's name is forever bigoted, racist, and exteme. Grampajack is right, this is just urban-soldiering behind the guise of 'safety'.

 

[azrocks]

Sounds to me like they're training to "defend" themselves against police. I don't see how this is any different than the standard black lives matter nonsense. For all intents and purposes, it sounds like this guy is essentially the training division for his local BLM movement.

Unspeakable numbers of black on black gangland murders, often with innocents being targeted, and they're only concern is with cops. Shameful. Just shameful.

That's not the impression I got...

"Look, man. Black Guns Matter isn't just for black people—it's for anyone who has been disenfranchised, oppressed, or slandered. We're the ones on the streets, and we're going to use the Second Amendment to defend ourselves against any tyrant. If police don't want to protect us, we'll protect ourselves. We'll protect ourselves from the scumbags in our community. I don't call the police, ever."

Sounds to me like he's catering to the law-abiding segment of the population within the hood, who either don't trust police or (rightfully) don't expect them to be there for them when they need help.

Criminals aren't concerned with the 2A. Felons lose their rights to gun ownership. This man's intended audience isn't the crips or bloods. It's the good people growing up and living in a very bad environment.

 

[CoRoMo]

I'd read the first article on Toure over a month ago. Impressive, articulate young man, this guy.

 

[grampajack]

That's not the impression I got...

"Look, man. Black Guns Matter isn't just for black people—it's for anyone who has been disenfranchised, oppressed, or slandered. We're the ones on the streets, and we're going to use the Second Amendment to defend ourselves against any tyrant. If police don't want to protect us, we'll protect ourselves. We'll protect ourselves from the scumbags in our community. I don't call the police, ever."

Sounds to me like he's catering to the law-abiding segment of the population within the hood, who either don't trust police or (rightfully) don't expect them to be there for them when they need help.

Criminals aren't concerned with the 2A. Felons lose their rights to gun ownership. This man's intended audience isn't the crips or bloods. It's the good people growing up and living in a very bad environment.

I find myself saying this a lot lately, but here it goes... There are so many things wrong with his statement, I just don't know where to begin.

First of all, cops do want to protect you! And they do it for very littler pay, and while putting up a tyrannical bureaucracy in the process. They hate writing tickets, and especially dealing with BS domestic disputes and drugs, which makes up most of their job. They would nothing more than to get the call to come rushing to your rescue, and they would gladly get themselves into a shootout to save you.

And they are colorblind, at least as much as is practical. I have absolutely no doubt that 99.9% of cops in this country would put themselves on the line to protect an innocent victim regardless of race, class, creed, or religion. This idea that cops intentionally fall down on the job in black communities is pure nonsense. Blacks get the same level of protection from police as any other race.

And what tyrant is he talking about? In the context of his other statements, which equate recent police shootings to murder (which is beyond absurd), it seems he's talking about police. In essence, what he's implying is that the likes of Michael Brown and Freddy Gray need to start packing heat to protect themselves from the murderous, racist, tyrannical police.

Furthermore, LE protection is not a right. Protecting yourself is a right, and 911 is just a bonus. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the people having the right to government protection. Rather, they have the right to protect themselves from government. So the two ideas are mutually exclusive. Tasking the government with protecting the people is akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse.

So the police do want to protect him, and he has the obligation to protect himself. In other words, he's griping about nothing. Case in point. Back in college many years ago, I had an old boss threatening to kill me. After I quit to join the Army, he apparently got into some pretty heavy stuff and went out of his mind, lost his business, etc. After I got back into town, unbeknownst to me, he had formulated this little conspiracy theory in which his employees had caused him to loose the business. Needless to say, I was a bit concerned. I filed a police report, and the cop took me aside and levelled with me. He said there was nothing they could do except show up to document the crime scene. And then he told me off the record to start carrying a gun.

That's the reality of it, black or white. The police want to help you, and they'll come running anytime you call, but you are solely responsible for your own self defense. It's not racism, and it's not incompetence. It's just the way it is, and no amount of money or equality training is going to change it.

 

[VoodooMountain]

People in the hood aren't being shot due to negligence. Firearm safety classes won't help.

A 30 second psa in YouTube or tv could cover all basic safety rules.

I don't know if this will ruffle some feathers but the people doing the shooting in these urban areas are NOT your average people. Forget about rehabilitating or educating most of them as they just don't care. They act like animals and I see it every single day because of my job

I say wall off these areas and let them deal with themselves.

 

[azrocks]

I find myself saying this a lot lately, but here it goes... There are so many things wrong with his statement, I just don't know where to begin.

Perhaps I can clarify things for you, because you've unnecessarily gone on the defensive.

First of all, cops do want to protect you! And they do it for very littler pay, and while putting up a tyrannical bureaucracy in the process. They hate writing tickets, and especially dealing with BS domestic disputes and drugs, which makes up most of their job. They would nothing more than to get the call to come rushing to your rescue, and they would gladly get themselves into a shootout to save you.

And they are colorblind, at least as much as is practical. I have absolutely no doubt that 99.9% of cops in this country would put themselves on the line to protect an innocent victim regardless of race, class, creed, or religion. This idea that cops intentionally fall down on the job in black communities is pure nonsense. Blacks get the same level of protection from police as any other race.

I never said anything to the contrary. What I did say, in so many words, is that Maj speaks to an audience that - in general - distrusts police, and for whom the police will not be there for when they need help.

As for the first part, distrust in police, that's not my opinion... that's the way they feel. Whether or not that distrust has been earned is not the point of my observations. What is important is that, due to this distrust, people in these communities have an even greater need of a self-defense mindset that negates the need of police to assure their safety.

As for the second part, police not being there, that's not a slam on police... it's just a fact. It's fact enough that those of us who live in relatively crime-free white neighborhoods go packing on a regular basis. It's fact enough that nearly everyone on this board will parrot the same tune. You can't count on the police to protect you from violent crime. That's not to say they wouldn't like to. But 9 times out of 10, they're just going to be writing the report after all the interesting stuff has gone down. That's why we carry. So why is Maj saying exactly the same thing so wrong? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the mental gymnastics necessary to find fault in his actions, or on my comments regarding them for that matter. I mean... you say the exact same thing I just did later on in this very post. You agree the police won't be there for you but when I say it it's so wrong you don't know where to start? LOL.

And what tyrant is he talking about?

That's a good question, isn't it?

I often wonder what 99% of the white gun-loving, 2nd-ammendment-supporting NRA members I know are talking about when they state they believe the 2A exists not only for self-defense, but also for defense against a government gone bad. I mean - that language isn't in the constitution, now is it? There's no provision for people to just decide on their own that the government no longer serves their interest, allowing them to wage some sort of legally-recognized revolution. Yet the vast majority of white gun owners I know believe this very thing. I wonder if they'd use the word 'tyrant' to describe this potential errant government?

That's the really long way of saying that what you think Maj was alluding to, is exactly the same talk that goes around the water cooler at AnyWhiteGunRange USA, 365, 24-7. You know, I know it, and everyone reading this thread knows it. The same talk that never goes anywhere, because aside from a handful of mental defectives, everyone knows that what we have now isn't even close to justifying armed rebellion. It's entirely possible to believe the 2A exists as a defense against tyranny while also believing the time and place for that last resort is not here yet. Your friends do it everyday. You know - the ones who think just like Maj does but don't look quite the same.

Furthermore, LE protection is not a right. Protecting yourself is a right, and 911 is just a bonus. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the people having the right to government protection. Rather, they have the right to protect themselves from government. So the two ideas are mutually exclusive. Tasking the government with protecting the people is akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse.

Wait... didn't we just talk about this? Why yes we did! So you personally feel that the people have a right to protect themselves from government - that it's an actual right - but when Maj uses the word tyrant, you get all nervous?

And I don't know what you're going on about regarding LE protection not being a right. Of course it's not. Isn't that what Maj is doing? Teaching others to defend themselves & not rely on police?

So the police do want to protect him, and he has the obligation to protect himself. In other words, he's griping about nothing.

Griping? Where did he gripe? Are you reading the same article I am? Again I don't know what you're going off about. The article is about a young black republican / NRA member who gives freely of his time to teach people in poor communities respect for gun ownership and the 2A. He's doing the exact opposite of griping - taking action. He couldn't possibly be any less grippier than he is now. Griping? Huh?

Case in point. Back in college many years ago, I had an old boss threatening to kill me. After I quit to join the Army, he apparently got into some pretty heavy stuff and went out of his mind, lost his business, etc. After I got back into town, unbeknownst to me, he had formulated this little conspiracy theory in which his employees had caused him to loose the business. Needless to say, I was a bit concerned. I filed a police report, and the cop took me aside and levelled with me. He said there was nothing they could do except show up to document the crime scene. And then he told me off the record to start carrying a gun.

That's the reality of it, black or white. The police want to help you, and they'll come running anytime you call, but you are solely responsible for your own self defense. It's not racism, and it's not incompetence. It's just the way it is, and no amount of money or equality training is going to change it.

Yeah, ummm, again: Isn't that exactly what Maj is doing? Exactly what he's teaching?

 

[chicharrones]

http://www.vice.com/read/urban-gun-violence-as-seen-by-a-black-second-amendment-activist

This man is doing great work. What do you think about this program?

I'll have to check that out when I get off of work.

At first glance, the thread title made me think of the Armed Citizen Project from a couple years ago in Houston.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Armedcitizenproject

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02...me-neighborhoods-to-test-if-crime-is-reduced/

 

[grampajack]

Perhaps I can clarify things for you, because you've unnecessarily gone on the defensive.



I never said anything to the contrary. What I did say, in so many words, is that Maj speaks to an audience that - in general - distrusts police, and for whom the police will not be there for when they need help.

As for the first part, distrust in police, that's not my opinion... that's the way they feel. Whether or not that distrust has been earned is not the point of my observations. What is important is that, due to this distrust, people in these communities have an even greater need of a self-defense mindset that negates the need of police to assure their safety.

As for the second part, police not being there, that's not a slam on police... it's just a fact. It's fact enough that those of us who live in relatively crime-free white neighborhoods go packing on a regular basis. It's fact enough that nearly everyone on this board will parrot the same tune. You can't count on the police to protect you from violent crime. That's not to say they wouldn't like to. But 9 times out of 10, they're just going to be writing the report after all the interesting stuff has gone down. That's why we carry. So why is Maj saying exactly the same thing so wrong? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the mental gymnastics necessary to find fault in his actions, or on my comments regarding them for that matter. I mean... you say the exact same thing I just did later on in this very post. You agree the police won't be there for you but when I say it it's so wrong you don't know where to start? LOL.



That's a good question, isn't it?

I often wonder what 99% of the white gun-loving, 2nd-ammendment-supporting NRA members I know are talking about when they state they believe the 2A exists not only for self-defense, but also for defense against a government gone bad. I mean - that language isn't in the constitution, now is it? There's no provision for people to just decide on their own that the government no longer serves their interest, allowing them to wage some sort of legally-recognized revolution. Yet the vast majority of white gun owners I know believe this very thing. I wonder if they'd use the word 'tyrant' to describe this potential errant government?

That's the really long way of saying that what you think Maj was alluding to, is exactly the same talk that goes around the water cooler at AnyWhiteGunRange USA, 365, 24-7. You know, I know it, and everyone reading this thread knows it. The same talk that never goes anywhere, because aside from a handful of mental defectives, everyone knows that what we have now isn't even close to justifying armed rebellion. It's entirely possible to believe the 2A exists as a defense against tyranny while also believing the time and place for that last resort is not here yet. Your friends do it everyday. You know - the ones who think just like Maj does but don't look quite the same.



Wait... didn't we just talk about this? Why yes we did! So you personally feel that the people have a right to protect themselves from government - that it's an actual right - but when Maj uses the word tyrant, you get all nervous?

And I don't know what you're going on about regarding LE protection not being a right. Of course it's not. Isn't that what Maj is doing? Teaching others to defend themselves & not rely on police?



Griping? Where did he gripe? Are you reading the same article I am? Again I don't know what you're going off about. The article is about a young black republican / NRA member who gives freely of his time to teach people in poor communities respect for gun ownership and the 2A. He's doing the exact opposite of griping - taking action. He couldn't possibly be any less grippier than he is now. Griping? Huh?




Yeah, ummm, again: Isn't that exactly what Maj is doing?

Okay, we need to stop flying off into left field. He stated that he's training people because of recent police shootings, obviously referring to the likes of Michael brown. Then he suggests that blacks need to defend themselves against tyrannical police.

So basically what he's saying is that the likes of Michael Brown should shoot the likes of Darren Wilson while attempting to make a lawful arrest. Keep in mind that Brown had just robbed a man, so Wilson was arresting him in the pursuit of preserving a citizen's constitutional rights. That is not an example of a patriot defending himself against tyrannical police. It's an example of a thug trying to murder a cop in the middle of a lawful arrest.

This joker is simply another BLM extremist. If he's willing to say these things publicly, to a white media, then just imagine the kinds of things he's teaching those kids. In my opinion, what he's doing, based on his stated purpose, is akin to a terrorist training camp.

 

[hdwhit]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the people having the right to government protection./QUOTE]

Actually, that's precisely what the preamble to the Constitution is speaking of when it says the document, which is the government's controlling authority, being ordained to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ... promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

 

[grampajack]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the people having the right to government protection./QUOTE]

Actually, that's precisely what the preamble to the Constitution is speaking of when it says the document, which is the government's controlling authority, being ordained to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ... promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

The constitution lays out more of what the government can't do than what they must do. They have a few very basic jobs, and coming to your rescue isn't one of them. You also can't interpret the preamble any old way you want. It's simply a doctrinal statement summing up the purpose of the body of the document, like a thesis statement. The actual interpretation of those things is laid out in the articles and the amendments.

And there's nothing in there that says that you have the right to dial a magic telephone number and have people come rescue you. That's a luxury we enjoy because of technology and, more than anything, a wealthy taxpaying populace. In essence, the police are a paid service, not a fundamental right.

What the constitution really says is that no one can wrongfully take away your possessions, whether they be individuals or government agents. And you have the right to defend yourself against anyone who violates that right.

If this airhead wanted to talk about defending ourselves against tyrannical government, then he would be talking about civil asset forfeiture and structuring laws, not a couple of thugs who deserved what they got. But those particular issues aren't even a thing in the black communities, so they don't care.

 

[azrocks]

Okay, we need to stop flying off into left field. He stated that he's training people because of recent police shootings, obviously referring to the likes of Michael brown. Then he suggests that blacks need to defend themselves against tyrannical police.

So basically what he's saying is that the likes of Michael Brown should shoot the likes of Darren Wilson while attempting to make a lawful arrest. Keep in mind that Brown had just robbed a man, so Wilson was arresting him in the pursuit of preserving a citizen's constitutional rights. That is not an example of a patriot defending himself against tyrannical police. It's an example of a thug trying to murder a cop in the middle of a lawful arrest.

This joker is simply another BLM extremist. If he's willing to say these things publicly, to a white media, then just imagine the kinds of things he's teaching those kids. In my opinion, what he's doing, based on his stated purpose, is akin to a terrorist training camp.

I know, right? Since you cherry-picked one paragraph out of the whole article to dissect (using questionable logic, I might add), here are a few more things this black devil said. Simply inexcusable!

"But violence can be easily avoided. Most of the time, conflict can be handled way before firearms are involved—I'm talking about conflict resolution. I mean, I've never had to shoot anyone. Having a firearm doesn't mean you have the right to commit an act of violence. But unfortunately, if it comes to that—and it very rarely does—you need to be trained to handle the situation."


"But I don't think people should go there—you only go there when someone gets violent, and you have no choice but to defend yourself."

"The rules guiding the use of deadly force are clear: Don't point a gun at someone unless you fear for your life. But harassment? Harassment doesn't mean you take someone's life. If someone says, "Maj, I don't like your hair," I can walk away from that. Deadly force is only used in spaces where you have no other option"

"And that's why, if you're going to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you need training. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have a gun—I'm saying, if you're going to carry a gun, you need to learn how to do it properly and legally."

Actually, I'm going to stop here, because I just realized that if I kept on cutting & pasting positive things he said, I'd have pasted the ENTIRE ARTICLE excepting the small paragraph that you don't understand the meaning of.

 

[azrocks]

If this airhead wanted to talk about defending ourselves against tyrannical government

He didn't.

 

[grampajack]

I know, right? Since you cherry-picked one paragraph out of the whole article to dissect (using questionable logic, I might add), here are a few more things this black devil said. Simply inexcusable!

"But violence can be easily avoided. Most of the time, conflict can be handled way before firearms are involved—I'm talking about conflict resolution. I mean, I've never had to shoot anyone. Having a firearm doesn't mean you have the right to commit an act of violence. But unfortunately, if it comes to that—and it very rarely does—you need to be trained to handle the situation."


"But I don't think people should go there—you only go there when someone gets violent, and you have no choice but to defend yourself."

"The rules guiding the use of deadly force are clear: Don't point a gun at someone unless you fear for your life. But harassment? Harassment doesn't mean you take someone's life. If someone says, "Maj, I don't like your hair," I can walk away from that. Deadly force is only used in spaces where you have no other option"

"And that's why, if you're going to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you need training. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have a gun—I'm saying, if you're going to carry a gun, you need to learn how to do it properly and legally."

Actually, I'm going to stop here, because I just realized that if I kept on cutting & pasting positive things he said, I'd have pasted the ENTIRE ARTICLE excepting the small paragraph that you don't understand the meaning of.

So you defend him because he says don't shoot someone who insults your hair? Yea, that's a powerful statement alright. A regular Gandhi this guy is.:banghead:

So don't shoot someone who insults your afro, but it's okay to shoot a cop while he's trying to lawfully arrest you. Got it.

I've also got a little hint for you. Anything published by Vice is going to be despicable to its core, and you can take that to the bank. Those people are radical liberal extremists, and they push only the most insidious of liberal agendas. You do realize that they started out as a magazine to glamorize drug culture, and they continue to push that agenda to this day. Quite frankly, I'm surprised this site allows Vice to be linked here, given the nature of their content.

 

[TimSr]

That's not the impression I got...

"Look, man. Black Guns Matter isn't just for black people—it's for anyone who has been disenfranchised, oppressed, or slandered. We're the ones on the streets, and we're going to use the Second Amendment to defend ourselves against any tyrant. If police don't want to protect us, we'll protect ourselves. We'll protect ourselves from the scumbags in our community. I don't call the police, ever."

Sounds to me like he's catering to the law-abiding segment of the population within the hood, who either don't trust police or (rightfully) don't expect them to be there for them when they need help.

Criminals aren't concerned with the 2A. Felons lose their rights to gun ownership. This man's intended audience isn't the crips or bloods. It's the good people growing up and living in a very bad environment.

That's kind of how I took it, though I have to admit, I'm hopefully optimistic. He is certainly using all the buzzwords, but I'm unclear as to who the "tyrants" are he refers to. Who are the tyrant's in the hood, and who governs the hood? Let's face it, police aren't there, and under current conditions don't want to be. You protect somebody, and find yourself the subject of an angry mob, so I don't blame them. In all these riotfests, I didn't see police protecting much of anybody other than the rioters. Maybe he meant the police. Maybe he meant the tyrants of the hood, who are typically those who rank high in the most successful criminal enterprises, who are the ones who really govern the hood.

I guess this warrants further research.

 

[wally]

I'm buying a Black Guns Matter T-Shirt at the next gun show! I've seen them before and thought it clever commentary, like "Pants up, Don't Loot!", but after seeing an interview with Mr Toure where he Challenged Hillary to disarm her bodyguards to put her money where her mouth is, and have some skin in the game.

 

[azrocks]

So you defend him because he says don't shoot someone who insults your hair? Yea, that's a powerful statement alright. A regular Gandhi this guy is.:banghead:

Once again you repeat the same pattern. When presented with a list of things to like about the guy, you seek out the one tiny thing that could be considered questionable, adding in your own baseless assumptions until you've created a monster in your mind where none likely exists. You're bleeding bias, and it shows.

I defend this guy because you're just making stuff up about him. You've taken one vague statement and fabricated an entire narrative around it based on nothing more substantial than your imagination. He used the word 'tyrant' in a sentence and now in your eyes he's running a terrorist training camp. It's so absurd it would be funny, if only it wasn't so sad.

I have no doubt Maj likely views the issues surrounding the BLM much different than I. But I saw absolutely nothing in the article that suggested he supports, endorses, or teaches violence against police. He's obviously not a felon, or else he wouldn't be able to do what he's doing, particularly under the light of media attention. And he's likely not teaching felons, for the very same reason. So at the end of the day, what do we have: Some law-abiding black guy who doesn't trust police teaching other law-abiding black guys how to defend themselves using the 2A legally. I've got no problem with that.

 

[Deanimator]

The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent white supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a "safe working environment".

Apparently lynching isn't nearly as much fun when it's uncertain who's going to end up dead.