What can we learn from the Black Panthers?

[JohnBT]

"In the 1960s you saw armed demonstrations."

As I remember it, the demonstrations of armed force were primarily by the authorities. For instance...

'68 Chicago Democratic Party convention

 

[Dravur]

Wow, a loaded poll to give only the answers that you want. You must be with the DNC.

Some days it doesn't pay to get out of bed, put on the superhero suit and fight internet abuse.

 

[21bubba]

I'm a simple man with no were near the vocabulary of some members here,so i have to break down things into simple terms.

This is a fight that hardcore 2nd. supporters can't win. the majority of citizens are never going to be comfortable with open carry anywhere.

Comparing the B.P. to hard core 2nd. supporters is just that, a comparasion.They are not the same but, the comparasion can be made.

The idea that the B.P.'s were grandstanding is true, so were the men in N.H. and AR.

Just because a person isn't doesn't drink the kool-aid of the hardcore view of a movement doesn't mean they don't support the cause.

 

[Sam1911]

the majority of citizens are never going to be comfortable with open carry anywhere

I used to believe that. Now, not so much. There are probably places where open carry will not be accpeted during our lifetimes. However there are lots of places, a growing number of them in fact, where open carry is accepted.

If you said "the majority of citizens are currently not comfortable with open carry," I'd agree with you.

But times change, and attitudes change radically. The list of things that "the majority of citizens" were not confortable with when I was a kid back in the '70s (to say nothing of the '60s, '50s, '40s, etc.) but that are completely acceptable today is HUGE. Everything from contraception, interracial marriage, gays & lesbians (with their own shows on TV watched by MILLIONS), to the idea that carrying a concealed weapon in public is a personal right recognized by the vast majority of states. Let's not forget that women weren't even Constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote until 1920. That's only 89 years ago, but now you couldn't find 1 person in 1,000 who would consider that a reasonable situation.

We tend to look at attitudes around us and think, "this is how it is, and how it always will be." And that is simply not the case. While we're busy thinking that way, other folks who can see beyond that are working to change the world right out from under us.

We may be standing on a precipice with this issue. Between these non-violent protests, the Heller decision, the increase in availability of CCW permits, the open carry movement, and the recent boom in gun ownership -- and the galvanizing lightning rod of a powerful and actively hostile enemy (Obama) to cause us to tighten our ranks -- we may be seeing the beginnings of a sea change in public perception that totally favors the armed citizen.

It is also possible that if we are injudicious in our fight, we may alienate the "average citizen" and create enough of a backlash to turn the tide against our movement. Every major social reform movement faces that question of timing and riding-vs.-pushing the wave of public sentiment. Changes happen, but they do take time. Society never makes a turn-around like this quickly (barring some cataclysmic event...though thouse usually produce very negative changes, not the positive ones we seek).

So, to your statement I say, the majority of citizens are not yet comfortable with open carry everywhere, but if we choose our steps wisely and don't let up our pressure, they will become so. Probably sooner than you think.

-Sam

 

[bryskee]

I believe we know it's our right but it takes a fool to go about "proving" a point in that way. When the president is there it's a federal venue which means you no longer have that right unless doing what he did which is keep distance. Still, why give gun owners a bad name or look by going near the president (like him or not) with guns. Kinda foolish. I have the right to eat a handfull of glass and anils, but that doesn't mean I should do it to "prove" I have that right.

 

[rbernie]

Still, why give gun owners a bad name or look by going near the president (like him or not) with guns.

Um - if he was far enough away to not be in the venue (whcih would have required that he be disarmed), then he didn't go near the President.

Why do we continue to make this into something that it's not?

 

[jakemccoy]

Mark my words. Nothing good for gun owners will come from the AZ and NH gun carrying incidents. There will be a copy cat who will show up at a town hall meeting and truly frighten the average citizen who will watch it on every national news channel. We will make no friends nor convert any fence sitters with this type of display.

What bothers me to quite a degree are the number of members on this board who immediately try to vilify those on this forum who disagree with the gun toters actions and try to brand them as enemies of gun rights and Brady/Huffington types. Generally vilification of those who don’t agree with you and targeting them as enemies is one of the tenants of Fascism. I work within the political system for gun rights and over the years have made notable progress for our collective rights. Then there is the faction who are all “in your face” bluster and “Shall not be infringed” means to them that they will do whatever they damn well please regardless of the political or social consequences. Both factions have their place in the gun rights community. One can be too bold to the point of stupidity and the other can be too meek to the point of acquiescing to unreasonable restrictions. Working together they can be a powerful force for positive change.

The AZ and NH events are touchstone incidents and are very important events for society and us gun owners to ponder. I hope the Mods here do not close the threads concerning this. Soon enough at another rally, someone will come out of the woodwork and throw gasoline on the sparks that the AZ/NH individuals have ignited. Then we’ll see what society’s and the “in your face with a gun crowd” reaction is. As it stands now, staunch gun rights activists are having a very difficult time defending those gentlemen’s actions in the national media.

Those of us who find the actions of the NH and AZ gun toters irresponsible and counterproductive for the gun rights movement are not your enemies. We are law abiding, staunch supporters of the Second Amendment as written and confirmed by the Supreme Court.

That's where I am on this whole thing. Like you, I have noticed that prominent pro-gun advocates are having a hard time defending these guys' actions in the national media. We're not talking about people walking into a local grocery on a normal day. We're talking about Presidential venues (or the close vicinity thereof).

What's getting lost here is the importance of the fact that these stunts have been well orchestrated so far. Unfortunately, a copy cat has the right not to think things through too well. All we need is one knucklehead copy cat who doesn't get it. Then, we're screwed.

Back to the topic, a copy cat could make the stunt more threatening and closer to a Black Panther-type protest. The general public isn't going to step back and appreciate the fine differences between the Black Panther protests and what's happening now. In fact, they won't even consciously make the comparison. History will clumsily repeat itself if the gun toters become threatening.

It's not difficult to be threatening with a gun. Someone can even be threatening by accident, for example, by having poor muzzle control. Imagine that: more gun control laws because some jackass has poor muzzle control near a Presidential venue.

 

[bryskee]

No one said he was AT the venue did they? Nope. It still gives the MAJORITY of gun owners a bad look. As another said, does he take his gun to the store? I doubt it. He did it to prove a point and push buttons at the expense of other gun owners who know it's not the smartest idea even though it's our right.

 

[TravisB]

There's no question that one could draw up a long list of factors that distinguish the Black Panther Party for Self Defense in 1967 from the individuals we've seen so far in this recent trend. The two groups are certainly not "the same."

The information posted here about past criminal activities and the scary profile the BPP already had in the public mind (some of which I referenced myself in a post to another thread before I created this one) does distinguish the two significantly -- but partly because the overall identity of the current protesters is so vague. We don't have a single group or ideology to identify them with.

But it's just getting started. The BPP's armed political demonstrations also did not inspire nationwide alarm and gun-control legislation just one or two weeks after they started (although, admittedly, their Police Patrol demonstrations were designed more for a community audience than a media audience). If gun-rights activists wait until the current trend does start to more closely resemble the 1967 BPP situation, that could be too late.

I think it makes more sense to stop it before it so closely resembles a past situation that we see the same result.

A relevant question at this point would be: Is it possible that this armed-demonstration trend could become identified with a movement that today's Americans do find as frightening as 1967 Americans found the Black Panther Party?

I think the answer is yes. If we start to see self-identified militias showing up armed to political demonstrations, that will be more than enough to freak out non-militia-movement America (i.e., the vast majority of the country). Some of the freaking out will be unwarranted (there's nothing wrong or inherently frightening about the concept of citizen militias, which have a rather proud history). But some of it will not be, if we hear the kind of revolutionary rhetoric from large armed groups that we've been hearing from individuals.

Demonstrations are demonstrations. The armed Black Panther Police Patrols were seen by the public, correctly, as a demonstration by the Black Panthers that they were armed and ready to fight -- and that the BPP felt the 1967 situation was just one step away from a hot war. The Black Panther Party was, and, more important, was perceived as, demonstrating its readiness and willingness to use violence.

That's always what it means when you express your political grievances while prominently displaying a gun.

Everyone knows this -- even those who claim not to!

America won't totally freak out about a single individual here and there who pulls a publicity stunt by using a rifle as a prop. But it will totally freak out when confronted by a demonstration of military power by a large group of political protesters identifying themselves with the militia movement. The situation won't be just like the BPP situation, but it will be more than close enough to see a similar response. So far there is some evidence to indicate that if the trend continues it will become identified with the militia movement. "Militia movement" is admittedly a crude phrase that does not acknowledge important differences of ideology and ethics -- but it is a phrase that the media will use. And very, very, very, very, very few Americans will agree with the message sent by an armed militia preaching revolution: That government policy is becoming so unacceptable that we're a short distance away from dividing into teams and killing each other over it.

Really, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that a large percentage of Americans will agree that our nation is anywhere close to such a desperate situation. The idea that we are will be considered not just incorrect, but insane.

I really think that gun-rights organizations should be treating the present trend as a crisis -- a threat their missions. That the NRA does not have a condemnation of this trend splashed across its website's front page is a strong indictment of that organization's wisdom and character. It should be a tenet of pro-RTKBA folks that mixing the display of firearms with political speech is plainly contradictory to the values of our country. Not only is it true that buttressing one's political views with a gun display is antithetical to peaceful political speech, but also it is a proven way to get the public to support restrictive gun laws. It's a bad idea six ways from Sunday, and now is the time for leaders in this cause to stand up and say so.

 

[21bubba]

Sorry but this and the other thread are about to make my eyes bleed.

I just believe that if you could have a fair unbiased national vote on open carry that it would go down in flames.

 

[TravisB]

Still, why give gun owners a bad name or look by going near the president (like him or not) with guns.

Um - if he was far enough away to not be in the venue (whcih would have required that he be disarmed), then he didn't go near the President.

Why do we continue to make this into something that it's not?

Agreed. The armed protesters so far appear to have shown up at these locations because that's where the crowds and cameras are -- the same motivation as all sorts of other activists for other causes.

While there is always a message of implied violence (i.e., "I am ready and willing to become violent") when you express your political thoughts while displaying a gun, it does not follow that you are specifically threatening the President or should be presumed to have such an intention.

It's pretty obvious that a sure way not to get close to the President is to wear an AR-15. The Presidential-assassination angle in this controversy is a sensationalistic red herring, and I don't think it will last, because if the armed-protester trend spreads we'll see it at other kinds of political events, without the President or even another prominent politician present.

In the big picture, Americans will be more concerned about the expression of political views using a weapons display than about imagined plots against the President. That is the long-term threat that this trend poses to the RTKBA.

 

[bryskee]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

 

[Zoogster]

I actually think most Americans can become comfortable with open carry as they once were.
Places where it is done regularly become familiar with it. It is when the right is not exercised for a length of time that people are startled when it suddenly is.

I simply think it should be done progressively more often at a local and state level until over 50% of the states are accepting of it before it is forced into the national spotlight under the pretense of presidential safety.

Gradually getting the entire population used to the idea of holstered handguns carried responsibly. Rifles on occasion.

Starting at open carry of rifles on a national level before you have introduced at least half of the states to open carry on a regular basis is asking for trouble.



I absolutely believe people must exercise thier rights or they will cease to be seen as normal. At the point they become foreign people then are shocked when someone does, and it can lead to legislative consequences that go against the 2nd Amendment.
Unfortunately people in most of the nation are already at the level were it is foreign, so it needs to be brought back gradually.
Start with widespread holstered handguns at local and state levels. Not rifles at a national level!

Then when some foolish people do something stupid while legally open carrying it can be seen as a problem with those individuals because society understands many responsible people open carry without problems on a regular basis.
If it unique and foreign still at the time people do stupid things that come to the attention of the public, then the freedom is blamed rather than the individual.

Supporting and encouraging these presidential displays is going to get some less discretionary people jumping on the bandwagon before it is time at future rallies. Whether it should then be allowed (or stopped with legislation) will be a national question before it is time for that question to be asked. We need people to be familiar with responsible open carry at state and local levels before that question is asked nationally.
Then the public at large will be more understanding of it being a right they should not infringe on with legislation.

 

[rainbowbob]

All I know is that in this culture of instant and inflammatory "breaking news" stories, if my motive was to scare people into voting further restrictions on firearms, I'd think up ways to "legally" scare the crap out of the general populace.

 

[TravisB]

I actually think most Americans can become comfortable with open carry as they once were.

As this thread is not about general open-carry, but instead specifically the display of firearms to accompany political protest, I have to ask:

Have Americans ever been comfortable with political demonstrators using weapons display as part of their political speech?

If there was a peaceful time in United States history when Americans were A-OK with armed political demonstrations, I am unaware of it.

Open to being corrected on this.

 

[bryskee]

Holly crap Rainbowbob that could not have been put any more perfectly.

 

[21bubba]

+1 for rainbowbob

 

[30mag]

This is a fight that hardcore 2nd. supporters can't win. the majority of citizens are never going to be comfortable with open carry anywhere.

I disagree.
Never say never.

 

[Dr_2_B]

Open carry is not so tactically great anyway

 

[21bubba]

To 30 mag, you have the right to disagree. But i repeat, never.

 

[Lou McGopher]

How many of us believe in that saying, "The 2nd Amendment is there to protect the other nine," "Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved," or anything else to that effect?

If we truly believe in any of that, then we need to show it. We need to give reminders of who holds the power in this country.

BUT.... what can we learn from the Black Panthers?

Get public opinion on your side.

These gentlemen who have shown up at the rallies in NH and AZ, have done it right - calm, responsible behavior. Unlike the BP, they didn't make demands that society give them anything except the one thing all people deserve - liberty. Liberty is a powerful message that the public can get behind.

What can we learn from the Black Panthers? Don't be militant. Be neighborly. Be polite. Don't speak about violence and confrontation. Speak about peace and cooperation. The gun slung over your shoulder says all that needs to be said about violence and confrontation. We are good folk who aren't asking for anything that doesn't rightfully belong to all people. Let people see that.

There may come a time when armed resistance is the appropriate course of action. What we can learn from the Black Panthers is that misjudging when that time has arrived can undo everything.

 

[21bubba]

Most peole look at a a-r and think one thing "war gun". That's how you're going to convince joe or joesphine that you're the one for peace and cooperation? Wrong way to do it.

 

[lionking]

quote"How many of us believe in that saying, "The 2nd Amendment is there to protect the other nine," "Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved," or anything else to that effect?"

And what happens when you use your 2nd amendment right to intimidate others from their 1st amendment right?Or do the other half of the country who may not agree with you only have half the rights you do?What does the 2nd amendment have to do about healthcare?The only signal you are sending is you don't believe in the American process of free speech unless it is speech you agree with.
............................................................
quote"If we truly believe in any of that, then we need to show it. We need to give reminders of who holds the power in this country."

We the people hold power and the people sometimes don't agree with you.You have your chance for a new revolution every election and or take it to the courts
............................................................
quote"These gentlemen who have shown up at the rallies in NH and AZ, have done it right - calm, responsible behavior. Unlike the BP, they didn't make demands that society give them anything except the one thing all people deserve - liberty. Liberty is a powerful message that the public can get behind."

And bringing a weapon to a political rally to show to your fellow citizen is a powerful message that you don't care about their rights or point of view,if you don't get your way to hell with the rule of law you'll make it happen to your liking,at least that is the way they might see it
..........................................................
quote"There may come a time when armed resistance is the appropriate course of action. "

Sometimes I wonder if some would like to help that come about,the founding fathers were pretty smart guys but taking their words out of context makes one a zealot

.........................................................

 

[TravisB]

Does anyone disagree that if it becomes a trend to display weapons at public demonstrations that many of the unarmed protesters, especially those on the other side of whatever issue it is, will surely feel intimidated?

I don't mean are they justified in feeling that way -- rather, can't we be sure that they indeed will feel that way?

I really think there's no question that if one side starts bringing weapons to demonstrations, many on the other side will feel they have two choices: Stay home, or bring their own weapons.

This could be a case where a particular exercise of 2nd Amendment rights infringes on 1st Amendment rights.

Or to put it another way: Imagine trying to convince a judge that denying you this particular use of 2nd Amendment rights causes more harm to you than the harm you are causing to the 1st Amendment rights of others. Or: It's more important that you get to a display a gun in this circumstance than that everyone else be able to speak free of intimidation.

 

[jakemccoy]

Here's one word to make sure we stay grounded: Youtube.

Search for "gun idiot" on Youtube and browse for a bit. Unfortunately, we can't afford to have just anybody with a gun getting close to a Presidential venue.