What can we learn from the Black Panthers?

[Zoogster]

2. Those who believe strongly in RKBA will reach a breaking point and tell the government to stuff it. How that would end is anyone's guess.

It can work if everyone does it, but not in the short term and leads to a loss of freedoms they already have.

If they make a law that says you can't transport your gun without securing it in a holster, inside of a box, with the ammo locked in another box, with a trigger lock installed, with action remove from the firearm, while you remain 1,000 feet from any school, and cannot be in the fast lane of a highway while transporting, and....

And you break the law, you become a felon. Then they just say you are a felon and can no longer have guns. If they find you with any they toss you in prison with another felony.

So the fact that felons cannot have firearms essentially makes gun rights one of the one freedoms you cannot really fight for through civil disobedience.


If you are arrested for exercising your First Amendment rights, when you get out you still have your First Amendment Rights.
If you are arrested for a felony for exercising your First or Second Amendment rights (and the charges stick), you won't have Second Amendment rights when you get out.
Just First Amendment rights to complain about it.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Yeah these are the people who will be screaming to congress about passing laws to make the country safe. These are also the people who control can influence if not outright control the media outlets.

I feel it's important to point out that it's not a (I know you didn't use the word) liberal media that we're up against, it's an establishment media. People exercising their individual rights aren't a threat to liberals. They're a threat to the establishment. The Panthers weren't a threat to liberals, they were a threat to the establishment. So let's keep in mind where our opposition really lies. Who has the most to gain from keeping us unarmed? This is what we need to consider when we ask what may be the consequences of going to a protest while armed.

If that doesn't work then refer to Claire Wolf's famous quote and ask your self and others, "Are we there yet".

I've got a hunch that's eventually how the issue will unfortunately be settled.

 

[lionking]

"The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect against tyranny from the government and self protection in ones everyday life"

I believe that,most everybody does specially on this forum.However defining "tyranny" is subjective.A huge percentage of American's believe in the right to own a weapon and in self defense,and self defense is the key here.While they may agree on self defense,they may disagree with you on other things political or social wise.And when at a event or rally that is of a topic that people don't agree on they may see you as being offensive rather than defensive.

There are many quotes specially about protecting from the "government" but America is still a government "by the people".People are divided on healthcare,some want reform,some want government universal healthcare,some don't want the government involved at all.Whatever the outcome it will be because the people decided and compromised on it.When one sends the message that they will resort to "watering the tree of liberty" if the healthcare outcome isn't to their liking the people on disagreeing ends of the topic will not see you as protecting liberty from the government but forcing liberty from them.

Like I said,we saw in the recent elections in Iran where Islamic loyalist goon squads intimidated and threatened the opposition,the 2nd amendment becomes clear in this regard for protection against "tyranny" but let us not take the words of the founders out of context.If healthcare or any other issue doesn't go the way you want we have elections and a judicial system to protest anything that might be thought of as "unconstitutional"A system that all American's have equal rights to and equally take pride in.

 

[rainbowbob]

Those who would further restrict our rights will not miss an opportunity like this call for more laws. And they may get them as a result of this nonsense.

While the First Amendment doesn't ensure credibility or significance, it is supposed to guarantee freedom from fear — a freedom that is now under siege. Citing the Second Amendment and the increasingly maniacal rhetoric of conservative media firebrands, a small handful of violence-threatening protesters aims to make the rest of us — whether pro- or anti-health-reform — afraid to speak out.

And so we face a choice that has nothing to do with health care, gun ownership or any other hot-button issue that protesters of both parties are fighting over. It is a choice about democracy itself — a choice that comes down to the two axioms best articulated by, of all people, Mao Zedong.

One option is willful ignorance: We can pretend the ferment is unimportant, continue allowing the intimidation and ultimately usher in a dark future where "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Better, though, is simply making public political events firearm-free zones, just like schools and stadiums. That way forward honors our democratic ideals by declaring that politics may be war, but in America it is "war without bloodshed" — and without the threat of bloodshed.

David Sirota

Why do I quote this irrelevant leftist ass-hat? Because these are the kinds of responses that will continue to air until SOMETHING is done to stop this horrifying "new" tactic of the right.

Another unnecessary and useless federal gun law will be the likely result.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Another unnecessary and useless federal gun law will be the likely result.

The left can't even get its health care bill passed. There's a reason the AWB was let to expire, and CHL permits are on the rise. More of us need to get out there and carry to these rallies, to show we're peaceful. We need to cement the image of gun-bearers as being polite, respectful, and responsible, so that if some nut does do something stupid, it won't be enough to make people paint us all as being the same or equate us as being like the Panthers.

 

[TravisB]

More of us need to get out there and carry to these rallies, to show we're peaceful.

[facepalm]

Yes, because that's exactly how it will be perceived: The people who show up to a political dispute with guns are considered the peaceful ones.

The NRA and similar organizations work hard to paint a portrait of gun owners as responsible -- and it's generally true. Those who own guns, and especially those who grew up around them, tend to have a healthy respect for their power that is in stark contrast to the irrational fear displayed by many urban folk who have never held a real firearm in their lives.

But even those who are unfamiliar with guns do generally believe that most non-criminal gun owners behave responsibly with their guns. That's why many who do not own a gun or want to own a gun nonetheless provide crucial political support for the right to do so. They don't think the behavior of criminals with guns should take away the rights of non-criminals. In their daily lives, they don't generally see "law-abiding citizens," as they are often termed, behaving irresponsibly with guns.

You know a sure way to completely erase any public perception that "law-abiding citizens" are not the problem? Have these citizens display appallingly irresponsible citizenship: The intimidation of their fellow citizens with a display of firearms at a political event. Suddenly, it isn't the criminals that the public is worried about -- it's the supposedly "law-abiding" citizens using their legal rights in a way that shocks the conscience.

Urban liberals, by and large, are never going to carry guns to a political dispute. But when their political opponents do bring guns to a political face-off, these urban liberals are not just going to lie down and take it. They are going to use the power of the vote to prevent their political opponents from acting as armed mobs. And when, say, 80% of the electorate looks at the behavior of gun-toting political protesters and sees grossly irresponsible use of a legal right, you'll see that right taken away faster than you can say "we will forcefully resist."

Politics is an argument -- usually a very heated argument, often conducted at high volume, and sometimes existing just one step away from violence. And it is not unheard of for that line to be crossed, especially in an extremely polarized political climate such as prevails today. To be unable to perceive that a public political dispute is the worst possible place to display a firearm is to mark one's self in the public mind as someone who should not be trusted with a gun.

The public will support open carry so long as it remains safe to do so. Abusing the right to open carry by corrupting one of the pillars of American democracy -- the right to express one's political views without physical intimidation -- is a sure way to lose that right.

Absolutely clueless statements like this...

More of us need to get out there and carry to these rallies, to show we're peaceful.

...show how desperately we need courageous leadership on this issue. The NRA needs to show some spine and speak out unequivocally against this dangerous trend that threatens the rights of all gun owners. Even if they lose some members for it, at least in the public mind a major representative of gun owners will have displayed some common sense -- instead of a tacit endorsement of political madness.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

I think its hilarious and hypocritical, that senator Bobby Rush of Illinois, a former Black Panther and ex-convict, is pushing a gun registration and ammo licensing bill in Congress, yes it won't go anywhere, but this is very telling. Is he trying to make life easier for criminals? We all know they don't register and license squat, never will.

 

[smallbore]

The Black Panthers were also grass roots community activists who united in an effort to make their communities a better/safer place for their children. Above & beyond all of the media hype over their 'openly defiant and alarming display of weapons' they also had a role in the start/implementation of programs/services for their communities.

 

[rainbowbob]

TravisB nailed it quite eloquently and concisely.

"Because I can" will be answered with "Not anymore".

We will be saddled with further restrictions by giving the opposition all the excuse and public sentiment they will need to create even more "gun-free" zones at public political gatherings.

Turning the debate on health care (or any other issue) into a forum for the expression of Second Amendment rights is short-sighted and counter-productive.

 

[Lou McGopher]

The intimidation of their fellow citizens with a display of firearms at a political event.

In what way did the gentlemen in AZ or NH actively intimidate the other people at the rallies? Those Black Panthers in Philadelphia were clearly intimidating people with the way they were brandishing a weapon and confronting people entering and leaving the polling station. These gentlemen in AZ and NH were doing nothing of the sort. It's not for intimidating the other citizens. It's for reminding those in the govt that they aren't the only ones with guns.

grossly irresponsible use of a legal right

There's nothing irresponsible about openly carrying a firearm. Pointing it at someone, discharging it, or threatening to do so... that would be irresponsible.

Politics is an argument -- usually a very heated argument, often conducted at high volume, and sometimes existing just one step away from violence. And it is not unheard of for that line to be crossed, especially in an extremely polarized political climate such as prevails today.

This is just a rehash of the "road rage" argument against allowing people to carry firearms in their cars, or the argument against allowing people to carry where alcohol is served. I suppose we no longer think an armed society is a polite society?

 

[TravisB]

In what way did the gentlemen in AZ or NH actively intimidate the other people at the rallies?

Displaying a gun is not active intimidation. It's passive intimidation. Sure, you have plausible deniability ("Oh, darn, I forgot I was even wearing this thing!"), but that doesn't change the effect of the gun on others. The fact is, the generally accepted message received by a gun display at a political event is one of implied threat.

And there's nothing you can do about that.

The NH and AZ incidents were not that big a deal compared to what will happen if an armed group shows up for a rally. At that point, most people in America will perceive organized political violence and demand that this violation of American values cease.

 

[Werewolf]

And there's nothing you can do about that.

Well - OK then! Turn 'em all in Mr. and Mrs. America. Turn 'em all in!

 

[conw]

I see how some of you disagree with Travis about particular aspects of his argument, but I think he is right about the general perception, and the result of that perception, that we would bring about if we all showed up armed to political events.

It seems like most people who like the *concept* of being able to show up armed to political debates, as an "exercising of a right," are actually just doing it because they can. And the arguments in favor seem to mostly be "because we can." Well, we need to give more consideration to how this is going to affect the perception of the voting population, because while there will always be politicians looking to capitalize on stuff like this, the last thing we need/want is more people voting for them.

Does anyone honestly think this behavior, on a small or a large scale, is helping our cause? I totally agree it *shouldn't* be illegal, or an issue, but my personal wishes do not change the perception of other people, the so-called urban liberals someone above kept mentioning.

 

[conw]

geniusiknowit wrote:

In what way did the gentlemen in AZ or NH actively intimidate the other people at the rallies? Those Black Panthers in Philadelphia were clearly intimidating people with the way they were brandishing a weapon and confronting people entering and leaving the polling station. These gentlemen in AZ and NH were doing nothing of the sort. It's not for intimidating the other citizens. It's for reminding those in the govt that they aren't the only ones with guns.

OK, given, the secret service, police, and most gun owners agree that the actions taken were not inherently intimidating. I agree to this. You clearly feel this way. We agree about that.

BUT: do you really, seriously think that no fence-sitters were appalled by these actions? Fence-sitters who might have been persuaded to our side with less in-your-face tactics? This IS a political issue, in that displaying firearms ostentatiously at a political rally has a strong polarizing effect. People really do get pushed into saying "I'm OK with it" or "I'm not OK with it." Some people, who previously would have been firearm-neutral and ready for persuasion to our side, will be at least temporarily turned into anti-gun voters, etc.

Is that what we want? Is the benefit of "reminding government they're not the only ones with guns" really great enough to alienate potential allies?

Most of us utilize the same "one step at a time" thinking in not advocating full-auto legalization, YET. If we went around holding signs that said "MACHINE GUNS ARE AWESOME" or "Legalize full auto weapons," even though we know we're right we would alienate people. That's bad.

 

[rbernie]

It's time to call it done. The points have been made, and made, and made, and made, and the same handful of people are simply beating this poor dead horse beyond reason.

Nobody's changing their mind at this juncture, so it's best to just let it go.