What can we learn from the Black Panthers?
- Thread starter TravisB
- Start date
- Status
eatont9999
Member
The reason we have the second amendment is to protect us against a tyrannical government and keep us safe in our homes and on the street. What we learned from the Black Panthers this election, is that you need to be armed with a gun to vote in a public election. Otherwise, you run the risk of being beaten to death outside the polling place by several men wearing leather jackets.
Mohawk
Member
I don’t think the thread should be locked at all. This is really the touchstone issue among gun rights activists right now. How far is too far? And how accepting is too little? When does acquiescence compromise our rights and when is too bold a statement counterproductive? I don’t think anyone is comparing the actions and tactics of the Black Panthers with the recent law abiding display of a firearm at a political rally. I think that the comparison is being made concerning the two in the context of public perception and whether it furthers or detracts from our position on gun rights.
Just to give you a dose of reality, here is a “Travel Guru” who has just today come out with a statement saying he and all his followers should boycott Arizona because of the Phoenix incident with the Ar15. His name is Arther Frommer and the link is www.azcentral.com This is the Arizona Republic, the main newspaper in AZ. So it’s not some insignificant little blog. We in Arizona exist on the tourist industry because we’re nothing but desert, rocks, a very big hole, plus the Colorado river. Take away the river and we're nothing but dust and a big hole.
I work in the industry that entertains those tourists.
Now the chamber of Commerce and other groups are going to have to do major damage control because of this.
I’m not saying the guy didn’t have a right to do what he did but I think the fallout from public perception is counterproductive. We can argue that the problem is with public perception or we can determine that it was a bad tactical move on our part and cost us some valuable positioning concerning gun rights. The ripples of a small pebble cross the whole pond.
The text of the article
Arthur Frommer won't travel to Arizona after gun display
Stopping short of calling for a national travel boycott of Arizona, travel guru Arthur Frommer said he won't be making any trips to the Grand Canyon State following reports this week that a dozen protesters openly carried firearms just outside President Barack Obama's speech in Phoenix.
While Arizona law allows most adults to pack heat in public, Frommer said he was "shocked beyond measure" by the gun-toting "thugs" and "extremists," which included a man with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder.
"For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest," Frommer (right) wrote on his blog.
"I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there," he added.
"And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona."
Frommer, who founded his eponymous series of budget-travel guides in 1957, is an influential voice in the travel world. And his warning to globe-trotters is a blow to the recession-stricken Arizona tourism industry.
Mayor Phil Gordon said he planned to call Frommer immediately and invite him to Phoenix to clear up any misperceptions that his city is not safe.
"I want to show him the perceptions of what he saw in the news is not a reflection of what Phoenix and the state are all about, " Gordon said.
Steve Moore, head of the Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau, called Frommer an "icon of travel," but said he has no desire to weigh into the gun debate. He only wants to prove to Frommer it is safe to visit and live in Arizona.
"It demonstrates the power of perception. Here we've gone from a wonderful photo-op of the First Family overlooking the Grand Canyon to a protester with an assault weapon," said Moore, referring to the Obamas' outdoor excursion last weekend. "It's quite a juxtaposition."
In his blog, Frommer repeatedly raises the question of a national boycott of the state, something Arizona leaders are all too familiar with.
"The question is, should we all organize a travel boycott of Arizona until this tolerance of armed intimidation is ended, probably by an act of the Arizona legislature?" Frommer asked.
-- Scott Wong
Just to give you a dose of reality, here is a “Travel Guru” who has just today come out with a statement saying he and all his followers should boycott Arizona because of the Phoenix incident with the Ar15. His name is Arther Frommer and the link is www.azcentral.com This is the Arizona Republic, the main newspaper in AZ. So it’s not some insignificant little blog. We in Arizona exist on the tourist industry because we’re nothing but desert, rocks, a very big hole, plus the Colorado river. Take away the river and we're nothing but dust and a big hole.
I work in the industry that entertains those tourists.
Now the chamber of Commerce and other groups are going to have to do major damage control because of this.
I’m not saying the guy didn’t have a right to do what he did but I think the fallout from public perception is counterproductive. We can argue that the problem is with public perception or we can determine that it was a bad tactical move on our part and cost us some valuable positioning concerning gun rights. The ripples of a small pebble cross the whole pond.
The text of the article
Arthur Frommer won't travel to Arizona after gun display
Stopping short of calling for a national travel boycott of Arizona, travel guru Arthur Frommer said he won't be making any trips to the Grand Canyon State following reports this week that a dozen protesters openly carried firearms just outside President Barack Obama's speech in Phoenix.
While Arizona law allows most adults to pack heat in public, Frommer said he was "shocked beyond measure" by the gun-toting "thugs" and "extremists," which included a man with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder.
"For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest," Frommer (right) wrote on his blog.
"I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there," he added.
"And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona."
Frommer, who founded his eponymous series of budget-travel guides in 1957, is an influential voice in the travel world. And his warning to globe-trotters is a blow to the recession-stricken Arizona tourism industry.
Mayor Phil Gordon said he planned to call Frommer immediately and invite him to Phoenix to clear up any misperceptions that his city is not safe.
"I want to show him the perceptions of what he saw in the news is not a reflection of what Phoenix and the state are all about, " Gordon said.
Steve Moore, head of the Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau, called Frommer an "icon of travel," but said he has no desire to weigh into the gun debate. He only wants to prove to Frommer it is safe to visit and live in Arizona.
"It demonstrates the power of perception. Here we've gone from a wonderful photo-op of the First Family overlooking the Grand Canyon to a protester with an assault weapon," said Moore, referring to the Obamas' outdoor excursion last weekend. "It's quite a juxtaposition."
In his blog, Frommer repeatedly raises the question of a national boycott of the state, something Arizona leaders are all too familiar with.
"The question is, should we all organize a travel boycott of Arizona until this tolerance of armed intimidation is ended, probably by an act of the Arizona legislature?" Frommer asked.
-- Scott Wong
Last edited:
rbernie
Contributing Member
Well, it's always good to see that support for the RKBA is for sale to the next tourist.
<sigh>
<sigh>
Well, here's a reaction to the AZ gun-displaying protesters from Arthur Frommer, of the Frommer Travel Guides. He's a bit hysterical (stay away from Arizona!) and clearly ignorant about how widespread and generally unproblematic legal open carry has been to date (there's a funny comment at the bottom in which someone points him to the Wikipedia entry on open carry -- yeah, you probably shoulda read that before writing a column on the subject!).
However, Frommer's main argument is one we're going to see a lot more of if the trend continues:
And then he proposes an organized travel boycott of AZ to pressure the legislature to stop Arizona's "tolerance of armed intimidation."
Displaying guns as part of public political speech has a nasty, nasty history that Frommer (born 1929, military vet) and his generation know all too well. It's clear that he feels absolutely flabbergasted that Americans would introduce guns to a political demonstration. The dude ain't just concerned about it, he is "shocked beyond measure."
I can see him shaking his head, asking, "What country am I in?"
More to come. No doubt. The United States of America will not stand for political protesters showing up with guns. Because it would like to remain the United States of America.
However, Frommer's main argument is one we're going to see a lot more of if the trend continues:
And then he proposes an organized travel boycott of AZ to pressure the legislature to stop Arizona's "tolerance of armed intimidation."
Displaying guns as part of public political speech has a nasty, nasty history that Frommer (born 1929, military vet) and his generation know all too well. It's clear that he feels absolutely flabbergasted that Americans would introduce guns to a political demonstration. The dude ain't just concerned about it, he is "shocked beyond measure."
I can see him shaking his head, asking, "What country am I in?"
More to come. No doubt. The United States of America will not stand for political protesters showing up with guns. Because it would like to remain the United States of America.
Mohawk
Member
I respectfully disagree, rbernie. We here in Arizona have one of the least restrictve gun laws in the country. I agree that what was done was legal and done with a certain amount of "taste". I and others open carry all the time where appropriate and CCW the rest of the time. I don't think open carry of an AR15 at a presidential rally was appropriate. It sent a distinctly different message than "I'm just a citizen exercising my right to open carry."
I don't think we've heard the last of this bruhaha. The travel geek is just the tip of the iceberg. I can only hope it melts fast so we can get back on track with meaningful advances to gun rights.
I don't think we've heard the last of this bruhaha. The travel geek is just the tip of the iceberg. I can only hope it melts fast so we can get back on track with meaningful advances to gun rights.
What's really going to be a problem is when there are demonstrations of Side A angrily facing off with Side B of an issue. Example: the anti-war and pro-war sides in 2003.
One side shows up with signs and puppets. The other side shows up with signs and rifles.
I predict that if this happens, it will happen exactly once. The image of an armed political group showing up to demonstrate firepower will not seem like America to America.
Oh -- and say goodbye to the armed liberals/Democrats who are currently pro-RTKBA. It will be amazing how fast their support evaporates after they face an armed mob at a political demonstration! And how little a good grade from the NRA will matter anymore!
One side shows up with signs and puppets. The other side shows up with signs and rifles.
I predict that if this happens, it will happen exactly once. The image of an armed political group showing up to demonstrate firepower will not seem like America to America.
Oh -- and say goodbye to the armed liberals/Democrats who are currently pro-RTKBA. It will be amazing how fast their support evaporates after they face an armed mob at a political demonstration! And how little a good grade from the NRA will matter anymore!
Mohawk
Member
Let's just hope it doesn't come to that. I feel that there are many on this forum who are rethinking their position on the openly armed gentlemen at the recent rallys. Once the initial rush of how cool a move it was for us to display on a national venue, then the reality of the consequences set in. I'm not surprised that a lot of the usual suspects on this forum are not dialing in this thread with the, "Shall not be infringed!!!" posts. The position is not easy to defend in this case and is very easily portrayed as threatening and grandstanding by those who would take our rights. We have armed our opponents.
freewheeling
Member
If people carried openly during most of their daily activities then the public would become somewhat desensitized to seeing open carry and would not leap to conclusions about the carrier's intentions. That said, open carry at a public forum on health care tends to be a distraction. I can't see that it helps to make any salient point. Anyone who has ever fought in a war, or a political contest for that matter, knows that you choose your battles carefully.
I will say that in this particular instance the fact that the carrier was a black man, but somehow triggered a lot of irrational hysteria over a white patriot movement, at least served the purpose of irony.
I will say that in this particular instance the fact that the carrier was a black man, but somehow triggered a lot of irrational hysteria over a white patriot movement, at least served the purpose of irony.
Back on page 3 I posted this:
As far as I can tell, there has been no evidence since introduced that armed political demonstrations have ever been a part of peaceful United States history.
But there has also not been any tendency on the part of those advocating for armed political protest that they are endorsing something new and novel in American history: The routine public expression of political views while displaying a gun.
The armed-protest advocates appear to assume that this action will become acceptable to the people of the United States. But I have yet to hear any of them explain the foundation for this assumption.
An argument taking the following form would do much to buttress the position of the armed-protest advocates: "While it's true that Americans have never tolerated firearms display as a part of political speech, it is reasonable to believe that they'd be willing to tolerate it today because _______________."
Of course, this would require going into why Americans throughout history have never tolerated the mixing of firearms display and political demonstration. And armed-protest advocates seem to fear this area.
As far as I can tell, there has been no evidence since introduced that armed political demonstrations have ever been a part of peaceful United States history.
But there has also not been any tendency on the part of those advocating for armed political protest that they are endorsing something new and novel in American history: The routine public expression of political views while displaying a gun.
The armed-protest advocates appear to assume that this action will become acceptable to the people of the United States. But I have yet to hear any of them explain the foundation for this assumption.
An argument taking the following form would do much to buttress the position of the armed-protest advocates: "While it's true that Americans have never tolerated firearms display as a part of political speech, it is reasonable to believe that they'd be willing to tolerate it today because _______________."
Of course, this would require going into why Americans throughout history have never tolerated the mixing of firearms display and political demonstration. And armed-protest advocates seem to fear this area.
Mohawk
Member
I agree with you, SuperNaut. The original post and poll was biased, inflamatory and not designed to bring out a true discussion of the merits or demerits of the New Hampshire/arizona carry incidents. The OP definately had his own agenda. But for the fact that this thread was the only venue for discussion of the incidents I would have skipped it entirely.
Since this is a thread not about general open carry but instead specifically the displaying of weapons during political demonstration, let's grant for the sake of argument that people could get used to seeing open carry during typical daily activities. In fact, let's leap ahead into the future and say that everybody's cool with it and even a hippie soccer mom doesn't get a single bpm of heart-rate increase at the sight of a citizen's sidearm in the grocery store. (Or if she does, it's just because she thinks guns are hot.) Let's assume a best-case-scenario future.
Even in this best-case scenario, is it not reasonable to believe that Americans will still want to make an exception for political demonstrations? In other words, when Side A (anti-war) and Side B (pro-war) face off angrily in the street, screaming accusations of treason at each other, Americans would prefer that neither side show up for this political exchange toting AR-15s?
I can envision no reasonably possible future in which Americans will believe that allowing guns in this situation would be consistent with the values of our nation.
Lou McGopher
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 507
I disagree with this. I think any argument against open carry at these rallies is an argument against open carry anywhere. You can see this in the laws. They didn't specifically ban open carry just at political or government functions as a result of the Panthers' actions. They banned it pretty much everywhere.
People can get into heated disagreement or conflict anywhere, at any time, for any reason. The Black Panthers did just that. If we can't expect people to conduct themselves peacefully with firearms at a political event, we can't expect them to conduct themselves peacefully with firearms anywhere.
And it matters not whether the firearms are carried openly or not. The person with the firearm can use it at any moment regardless of whether or not the firearm's presence is obvious.
JohnBT said:
Which pretty much adds weight to my contention that rights are an abstract concept that mankind has and never will enjoy. Government - be it the chief of a tribe or the Congress of the United States of America grants citizens priveledges that define what they can and cannot do. They'll all cloak the language of those privelidges in feel good words appropriate to the times to make the goobers feel like they're free but a rose is a rose is a rose and a privelidge is still a privelidge no matter what you call it.
And our right to keep and bear arms goes only as far as the government will permit it to.
We impact the level of permission by our actions. For every action there is a consequence.
Lou McGopher
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 507
Proponents of natural right would disagree, saying that just because someone infringes upon your right doesn't mean you don't possess the right at all.
But this is no place to start a natural rights vs. Stirnerite egoism debate.
If you don't believe there are rights, that there are only privileges, then what course of action is most likely to succeed in protecting our ability to keep and bear arms? Is the end goal to keep and bear arms, or is keeping and bearing arms but a means to an end?
Did the Panthers go too far, or not far enough?
What is your end goal, and is it better served by parading around with the guns, as did the Panthers and these recent protesters, or keeping the guns out of sight and out of mind?
rainbowbob
Member
And then there is this sort of idiotic reaction...
I'm becoming more and more convinced we have little to gain - and much to loose - from these demonstrations.
I'm becoming more and more convinced we have little to gain - and much to loose - from these demonstrations.
Out of sight and out of mind also leads to a reduction in liberty in the future.
You could have 10% of the population carrying concealed, but if the other 90% has no idea they are next to people with guns all day it does not change thier media created perception.
While those same 10% carrying openly would be known by all to be carrying, and the perception of those people would change. They would know from first hand experience that a large number of people have guns around them all the time and nothing bad comes from it.
If nobody sees that a freedom is still exercised then they can still believe it is merely something people did in the Old West, and believe statements from groups like the Bradys.
If the only guns people see or hear about are those being used in crimes, the fact that they pass hundreds or thousands of people daily carrying one concealed has no impact on thier perception. So when it comes time to vote, those arms carried without any bad results have no impact on thier decision.
So I absolutely believe you must exercise the freedoms to retain them, not let them become unknwon and foreign to others.
I simply think you do it gradually across the nation at the local and state levels before you do it nationally. Build up a large number of knowledgeable people who have at least seen people carrying openly during thier daily lives without a problem.
Not start out with those same people with little or no experience around lawful open carry judging the carrying of intimidating black rifles around the president at the national level, especially judging those who will carry themselves very differently than the demonstrators we have seen so far, people inspired by those we have seen to grab thier rifle and head out to meet Obama.
Last edited:
Resist...
...Resist...
......It's so hard...
OK - I won't go there.
Using the USA as an example:
1. Campaign to inform and convince the public that RKBA is a fundamental right (oooops! there's that word again - ahhhh well - helps keep the masses happy).
2. When enough of the public is convinced, concentrate on helping pro RKBA candidates run for and win primary elections.
3. Help pro RKBA candidates win national and state offices
4. When the various houses are controlled by pro RKBA elected officials maintain constant communication with the ungrateful, short memoried bastards so they know who got them elected and what will happen if they don't foster and further pro RKBA laws and repeal anti RKBA laws.
5. If that doesn't work then refer to Claire Wolf's famous quote and ask your self and others, "Are we there yet".
6. Take action concurrent with the answer to the question asked in step 5.
Hindsight being 20/20 it is difficult to answer any other way than - yes, they went too far.
That's a very difficult question and to be honest I'm on the fence.
On the one hand I believe that a right not exercised is no right at all. And that's exactly where we are today. Gun owners have failed at every juncture to stand up for ourselves in the name of what's practical and just getting along. At some point we became the minority and essentially irrelevant. The general public doesn't care and sees no need for RKBA - after all isn't the government supposed to protect them, cannot they get food from the grocery store? That's where just trying to get along has gotten us.
On the other hand parading about with our guns highly visible scaring the sheep will just lead to more restrictions. :banghead:
We're between a rock and a hard place with no place to go.
I see two possible outcomes within the next 50 years:
1. The government propaganda machine will turn succeeding generations into sheep who despise RKBA (most likely).
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.
SwordRapier
Member
I have to say this I really do, I was going to pass this thread without comment. I didn't vote on the poll.
This comment is addressed to the people who thing it was a great idea to carry an AR 15 to a public protest.
You are attempting to apply logic to a group that honestly holds the following illogical myth near and dear to their hearts. Remember you are talking about the people who really an honestly believe that if we could magically remove guns from the USA, all violence will suddenly end.
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 don’t have a problem with open carry but, lets face it most people relate open carry to Hollywood’s version of the Old West. Seriously we need to consider that most people’s experience with open carry comes from Movies like Tombstone, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. How do you suppose those people are going to react to a tread of people carrying weapons to protests especially considering that the gun control myth believers are going to filling their Ears with their much loved myth.
In the eyes of the most people AR15 is a threat. Lets be real it is a threat. Isn't that the reason they are carried for self-defense? Those quills on a porcupine aren't just for show ya know.
This comment is addressed to the people who thing it was a great idea to carry an AR 15 to a public protest.
You are attempting to apply logic to a group that honestly holds the following illogical myth near and dear to their hearts. Remember you are talking about the people who really an honestly believe that if we could magically remove guns from the USA, all violence will suddenly end.
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 don’t have a problem with open carry but, lets face it most people relate open carry to Hollywood’s version of the Old West. Seriously we need to consider that most people’s experience with open carry comes from Movies like Tombstone, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. How do you suppose those people are going to react to a tread of people carrying weapons to protests especially considering that the gun control myth believers are going to filling their Ears with their much loved myth.
In the eyes of the most people AR15 is a threat. Lets be real it is a threat. Isn't that the reason they are carried for self-defense? Those quills on a porcupine aren't just for show ya know.
rainbowbob
Member
Open carry of a defensive pistol under normal circumstances - and carrying an AR-15 at a political demonstration - really are two different things.
The former is not likely to get too much notice or scare or offend anyone.
The latter is - and it will be broadcast around the world repeatedly along with inflammatory retoric.
See the difference?
The former is not likely to get too much notice or scare or offend anyone.
The latter is - and it will be broadcast around the world repeatedly along with inflammatory retoric.
See the difference?
- Status
Similar threads
