Support NeoGAF

[thecouncil]

Guns are the main power that the police have over black people. The oath keepers want to conduct an experiment where that power imbalance is leveled. The purpose of this experiment is to see if the police will behave differently in the face of armed protesters. Will the police be more aggressive or less? Will they be more respectful or less?

The oath keepers view this as not just a racism issue but also an issue of government authority. Police brutality is not restricted to black people. The oath keepers want to find out what the police will do when their authority is challenged by an armed group.

Oh, I can only guess.

 

[Enzom21]

I mean, judging by all the "I hope this leads to more gun control" comments...

Think about it: here you have an organization that opposes government oppression offering to march with the oppressed of Ferguson in solidarity with their equal rights under the law. And it's being spun as a bad thing? The fight for civil rights has never come without some risk of government retaliation. Why is it only now that that risk is offered as an excuse to give up the fight?

Can you point out all of these posts? There are plenty of posts talking about how this will lead to gun control because people who are normally pro second amendment will do a 180º because scary negroes have guns. Same thing happened with the The Black Panthers.

 

[kame-sennin]

They better be like "nope"


nothing good can come from it

History has shown the opposite. Tremendous strides in civil rights were made when blacks armed themselves. You really ought to research the Deacons for Defense. The armed security they provided at southern civil rights protests often caused the police to immediately deescalate.

A mentality of timidity is extremely useful for the oppressor. If being unarmed is no guarantee of safety, we ought to be armed and prepared to defend ourselves.

If you're white. If you're a black 12 year old playing with a toy gun, they roll up on you like the local gang and dump 3 in your chest.

Not really:

Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherfucker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s at and about and in.” After the February incident, the Panthers began a regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice.​

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

 

[Metaphoreus]

Can you point out all of these posts? There are plenty of posts talking about how this will lead to gun control because people who are normally pro second amendment will do a 180º because scary negroes have guns. Same thing happened with the The Black Panthers.

If you know anything about me, it should be that I can always point out all of the relevant posts:

If the Oath Keepers wanted to get some gun control legislation passed, that's the best way to do it.

On the bright side, nothing gets gun control moving like black people walking around with guns!

The ultimate backfire.

Do it, only thing it's going to do is make the racist people want gun laws.

And suddenly gun reform will be popular! Great plan! Black people with guns is as scary now as it was back then when the Black Panters did had them. If the Panther party could get the NRA to support gun control imagine what the BLM movement could do.

I welcome the Oath Keepers in furthering their agenda of more gun control. It's what Reagan would have wanted.

The idea is sound, but something like this has long reaching implications.

Mainstream America became terrified when the Panther Party started exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

http://hiphopandpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Black-Panther-Guns.jpg

The Mulford Act was signed thereafter, restricting gun usage in California.

Not for long!

I've been saying it for a while now, but the quickest way to get a gun control dialogue going in the US is to have mass protests complete with hundreds of open carrying minorities and disenfranchised people.

This.

It's evil genius levels of fear mongering that will push forward federal legislation enforcing stricter gun control, taking away MORE civil liberties from Black America.

Do all these people support more gun control, and so hope that this leads to more gun control? I don't know, but I suspect at least a handful do, given the forum.

But you're ignoring the bulk of my previous post.

EDIT:

Not really

You don't even have to go back that far to find counterexamples. This is from last August:

Two dozen protesters — most of them armed — from a gun club named after the founder of the original Black Panther Party peacefully marched through parts of South Dallas on Wednesday.

The open-carry rally was organized by the Huey P. Newton Gun Club to promote self-defense and community policing in response to recent police shootings, both nationally and locally.

Police monitored the black-clad demonstrators, some of whom had rifles slung over their shoulders. As they walked down MLK Boulevard and Malcolm X Boulevard in the blistering heat, many chanted “black power” and “justice for Michael Brown,” the black teenager fatally shot by police this month in suburban St. Louis. His death has touched off a string of often-violent protests in that area.

...

Freeman said Wednesday’s marchers planned to patronize several South Dallas businesses to keep their money in the community and teach their neighbors about their “right to self-defense.”

At one point, the group stopped at Elaine’s Kitchen, and one of the organizers told those who were armed to display their weapons in a “safe, disciplined manner.”

...

Dallas police officers appeared to follow the demonstrators in unmarked police cars. Toward the beginning of the 90-minute demonstration, a couple of police cars temporarily blocked off MLK Boulevard so the protesters could safely cross the street.

Christina Smith, acting commander of the Police Department’s strategic deployment bureau, said the “low profile” police presence was not unusual.

“It is standard protocol for non-uniformed officers to be present at all scheduled protests/rallys in order to protect the rights of the demonstrators as well as other citizens,” Smith wrote in an email.

While at Elaine's:

At one point, the march went to Elaine's Restaurant on Martin Luther King Boulevard, where demonstrators piled rifles on tables as they ordered cold drinks and food.

A Dallas police lieutenant and deputy chief were eating lunch in the restaurant at the time. They politely spoke to the demonstrators as they paid their bills.

 

[The Blackrose]

no seriously...how did the acquirement of military vehicles become a thing?!

Welcome to the 1033 program, a byproduct of the War on Drugs.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Are people in this thread upset about black people being armed or are they expressing concern that a very violent police force will kill the black people with guns?
Minorities are not the people with guns liberals are afraid of, the same cannot be said about Second Amendment advocates.

Do you actually know any liberals...

 

[Enzom21]

If you know anything about me, it should be that I can always point out all of the relevant posts:
Do all these people support more gun control, and so hope that this leads to more gun control? I don't know, but I suspect at least a handful do, given the forum.

But you're ignoring the bulk of my previous post.

I'll quote myself here:

There are plenty of posts talking about how this will lead to gun control because people who are normally pro second amendment will do a 180º because scary negroes have guns.

Every post you just quoted supports my argument.

Do you actually know any liberals...

So you're saying white liberals are the ones afraid of black people with guns?

 

[Slayven]

Found out a lot about liberals and their thoughts on black people protesting the last few months.

 

[HyperionX]

History has shown the opposite. Tremendous strides in civil rights were made when blacks armed themselves. You really ought to research the Deacons for Defense. The armed security they provided at southern civil rights protests often caused the police to immediately deescalate.

A mentality of timidity is extremely useful for the oppressor. If being unarmed is no guarantee of safety, we ought to be armed and prepared to defend ourselves.



Not really:

Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherfucker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s at and about and in.” After the February incident, the Panthers began a regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice.​

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

And yet America is significantly more racist and with worse race relations than countries with highly strict gun control.

 

[ThisGuy]

Found out a lot about liberals and their thoughts on black people protesting the last few months.

"Riots don't change anything! Don't ya know?"

I really hated social media during that. There was only one person I talked with in person that remembered the history lessons taught in school. Shit was a joke.

 

[Slayven]

"Riots don't change anything! Don't ya know?"

I really hated social media during that. There was only one person I talked with in person that remembered the history lessons taught in school. Shit was a joke.

Liberals don't mind a riot, as long as you "do it correctly" and on approve targets

 

[DoktorEvil]

And yet America is significantly more racist and with worse race relations than countries with highly strict gun control.

Funny that some of those countries also are homogenized and aren't a cultural melting pot like the US is.

 

[Enzom21]

Found out a lot about liberals and their thoughts on black people protesting the last few months.

This isn't anything new, plenty of staunch liberals who wouldn't vote for Obama because "I'm not voting for a nigger." but a lot of gun nuts are gun nuts because they fear the negro boogyman.

 

[Flo_Evans]

So you're saying white liberals are the ones afraid of black people with guns?

uh yeah. Just about every single white liberal is freaking terrified of going into north county. Just about every single white liberal in my neighborhood owns a gun just incase the "bad guys" decide to come down here. No one gives a single shit about other white people with guns.

 

[Maintenance]

Oh man.

 

[Sayter]

This is seriously the strangest news I've seen in the past couple of weeks.

"The first thing I'd say is that Black Lives Matter."

This is fucking weird.

It's not weird. It's completely batshit stupid.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'll quote myself here:

Every post you just quoted supports my argument.

You're discounting Buzzman's "bright side," Ferrio's "Do it," Ourobolus'"welcome," and my probabilistic argument that others quoted do, in fact, support more gun control legislation.

And, since this is a thing we're doing, I'll quote myself:

But you're ignoring the bulk of my previous post.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Not a fan of open-carry but if it's legal then it should be legal for everyone that's legally allowed to own a gun.

 

[FelixOrion]

Im not familiar with the Oath Keepers as a group, what's their agenda?

WE THINK WE'RE STILL IN THE MILITARY

 

[HyperionX]

Funny that some of those countries also are homogenized and aren't a cultural melting pot like the US is.

US is the not only cultural melting pot in the developed world.

 

[mkenyon]

Im not familiar with the Oath Keepers as a group, what's their agenda?

WE THINK WE'RE STILL IN THE MILITARY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW8BZ7pRt28

 

[Enzom21]

uh yeah. Just about every single white liberal is freaking terrified of going into north county. Just about every single white liberal in my neighborhood owns a gun just incase the "bad guys" decide to come down here. No one gives a single shit about other white people with guns.

Sounds like you have a lot of racists in your neighborhood.

You're discounting Buzzman's "bright side," Ferrio's "Do it," Ourobolus'"welcome," and my probabilistic argument that others quoted do, in fact, support more gun control legislation.

And, since this is a thing we're doing, I'll quote myself:

You used those quotes to support your argument that people were advocating for gun because black people were now armed and those quotes don't support that.
They are saying people who are against gun control will change their minds now that black people have guns.
Are liberals the people who are normally against gun control laws?

 

[Flo_Evans]

Sounds like you have a lot of racists in your neighborhood.

lol there are a lot of racists everywhere. Isn't this the core problem? Or is it just the "police" and the "gun nuts" or the "republicans"?

 

[DoktorEvil]

Are liberals the people who are normally against gun control laws?

Yes. Fundamentally they are pacifists.

US is the not only cultural melting pot in the developed world.

How many countries carry a recent history of slavery and oppression as recent as the 19th Century that treated black Americans as chattel?

 

[Metaphoreus]

You used those quotes to support your argument that people were advocating for gun because black people were now armed and those quotes don't support that.
They are saying people who are against gun control will change their minds now that black people have guns.
Are liberals the people who are normally against gun control laws?

No, I used the quotes to support my paraphrase, "I hope this leads to more gun control." They do that.

But you keep focusing on the tiny part of my post that was tongue-in-cheek. Maybe you've forgotten the rest I keep referring to, the "bulk" that you continue ignoring. Here, I'll quote it, too:

Think about it: here you have an organization that opposes government oppression offering to march with the oppressed of Ferguson in solidarity with their equal rights under the law. And it's being spun as a bad thing? The fight for civil rights has never come without some risk of government retaliation. Why is it only now that that risk is offered as an excuse to give up the fight?

EDIT: Put differently, the Oath Keepers, like all of us here, recognize that something has to change in Ferguson and elsewhere. They're advocating for that change to be the police respecting the rights of black residents. Some in this thread are hoping that change will be disarming the black residents. Wouldn't you much prefer the former to the latter?

 

[Nealand Liquor]

I keep seeing people saying/implying the Oathkeepers are racist, or anti-black, but have they ever actually done something that proves that? Or is it just assumed they are because they are progun and most likely republican?

I know nothing, well very little, about them.

 

[pigeon]

WE THINK WE'RE STILL IN THE MILITARY

That's a lot too generous.

The Oath Keepers are explicitly a group of disaffected soldiers (both current and former, meaning that they have a lot of potential access) who believe, and avow, that they have a responsibility to resist government action with means up to and including lethal force and sedition if that government action violates the Constitution. That's why they're called the Oath Keepers -- because they've agreed to uphold their oath to the Constitution (which means, to whatever authority the Oath Keepers deem to be the appropriate interpreter of the Constitution) over their responsibilities to the United States military and government.

In other words, they are more or less explicitly a fascist militia in the model of the Blackshirts or the various Nazi militias.

 

[timetokill]

Sounds good to me. More black Americans should feel free to exercise their second amendment rights. And a racially united populace marching against government-sanctioned police brutality can be a powerful symbol.

 

[Enzom21]

lol there are a lot of racists everywhere. Isn't this the core problem? Or is it just the "police" and the "gun nuts" or the "republicans"?

No it's not just those things, they are major part of the problem though.

No, I used the quotes to support my paraphrase, "I hope this leads to more gun control." They do that.

But you keep focusing on the tiny part of my post that was tongue-in-cheek. Maybe you've forgotten the rest I keep referring to, the "bulk" that you continue ignoring. Here, I'll quote it, too:

Sure it was.

 

[HyperionX]

How many countries carry a recent history of slavery and oppression as recent as the 19th Century that treated black Americans as chattel?

This is starting to turn into a No True Scotsman fallacy. Lots of countries had complex and ugly race relations in the past and gotten over it.

 

[Talyn]

That's a lot too generous.

The Oath Keepers are explicitly a group of disaffected soldiers (both current and former, meaning that they have a lot of potential access) who believe, and avow, that they have a responsibility to resist government action with means up to and including lethal force and sedition if that government action violates the Constitution. That's why they're called the Oath Keepers -- because they've agreed to uphold their oath to the Constitution (which means, to whatever authority the Oath Keepers deem to be the appropriate interpreter of the Constitution) over their responsibilities to the United States military and government.

In other words, they are more or less explicitly a fascist militia in the model of the Blackshirts or the various Nazi militias.

Based entirely on this description you've written, on the one hand you have the Oath Keepers who have vowed to defend the US Constitution at any cost, should the government ever violate it, and on the other hand you have the Blackshirts who pledged their loyalty to Benito Mussolini and were the paramilitary wing of the National Fascist Party. Well, I'm convinced. Clearly, your summation makes total sense and is in no way hyperbolic.

 

[Sayter]

This make us liberials look like complete hypocrites. If these folks want to arm themselves, and take on the cops like some southern hillbilly (sp) then please don't do it in the middle of a neighborhood or city. It's bad enough as it is that my own race shoots itself up by the hundreds every night.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

I was actually wondering when this would happen (I think I even made a post about that in a previous thread). The anti-government right wing groups SHOULD be supporting the BLM movement and the fight for equal rights. Black people are a living example of the government oppression they talk about. I welcome this and hope other such groups join the fight as well.

 

[DoktorEvil]

This is starting to turn into a No True Scotsman fallacy. Lots of countries had complex and ugly race relations in the past and gotten over it.

Gotten over it. How quaint and reductionist.

Have those countries also had issues where the local police force became militarized and well equipped against its own citizens?

I mean, I'm well aware of your bias for absolute gun control. It becomes tiring hearing non-Americans tell Americans how they should and shouldn't live.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Sure it was.

Whether you believe it or not makes no difference to me. You really don't want to confront the rest of that post, do you?

 

[Version 3.0]

It becomes tiring hearing non-Americans tell Americans how they should and shouldn't live.

I hope the irony of this statement is not lost on anyone.


As to the topic at hand, I don't even know what to think. "More guns" doesn't strike me as a good solution at first blush, but the story that kame-sennin posted gives me pause.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

It's a kind gesture, but violence isn't going to solve violence.

 

[Amory]

Lol yeah this is gonna go great

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's a kind gesture, but violence isn't going to solve violence.

Peacefully carrying guns isn't violent.

 

[Varjis]

This is starting to turn into a No True Scotsman fallacy. Lots of countries had complex and ugly race relations in the past and gotten over it.

I am not sure there is any utopia on this planet where race relations have been gotten over...

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

Peacefully carrying guns isn't violent.

Sure. But how long will the peace last? I'm not familiar with guns being a sign of peace like an olive branch.

 

[pigeon]

Based entirely on this description you've written, on the one hand you have the Oath Keepers who have vowed to defend the US Constitution at any cost, should the government ever violate it, and on the other hand you have the Blackshirts who pledged their loyalty to Benito Mussolini and were the paramilitary wing of the National Fascist Party. Well, I'm convinced. Clearly, your summation makes total sense and is in no way hyperbolic.

Sure. The Oath Keepers vowed to defend the US Constitution if the government violates it. And who's responsible for determining whether the government is violating the US Constitution? Well, the Oath Keepers are. Can you draw a straight line? It's nothing more or less than the Oath Keepers reserving the right to declare war on America at any time and say it's in defense of America, which is exactly how the fascist militias justified their actions.

Keep in mind that there's already a whole branch of government responsible for determining what's constitutional. Do the Oath Keepers spend a whole lot of time reading Supreme Court opinions and brushing up on constitutional law? Or do they talk about the New World Order and how liberals are destroying America? I think the evidence is pretty clear.

 

[HyperionX]

Gotten over it. How quaint and reductionist.

Have those countries also had issues where the local police force became militarized and well equipped against its own citizens?

Better than the US that is. Remember, the original argument was that violence improves race relations. The evidence suggests that it doesn't.

A huge part of why the police forces are so militarized is because everyone in this country is armed, so the police feel the need to "keep up" so to speak. I largely see it as a symptom.

I mean, I'm well aware of your bias for absolute gun control. It becomes tiring hearing non-Americans tell Americans how they should and shouldn't live.

I'm also an American BTW. Just one that realizes how self-destructive and backwards thinking we actually are.

 

[RPGCrazied]

This isn't going to end well. Man, I'm so glad I don't live in that area.

 

[Fenderputty]

Wow ... surprised someone gonna do this ...

 

[Hyun Sai]

It becomes tiring hearing non-Americans tell Americans how they should and shouldn't live.

You don't say !

 

[Talyn]

Sure. The Oath Keepers vowed to defend the US Constitution if the government violates it. And who's responsible for determining whether the government is violating the US Constitution? Well, the Oath Keepers are. Can you draw a straight line? It's nothing more or less than the Oath Keepers reserving the right to declare war on America at any time and say it's in defense of America, which is exactly how the fascist militias justified their actions.

Keep in mind that there's already a whole branch of government responsible for determining what's constitutional. Do the Oath Keepers spend a whole lot of time reading Supreme Court opinions and brushing up on constitutional law? Or do they talk about the New World Order and how liberals are destroying America? I think the evidence is pretty clear.

You think the evidence is pretty clear while not citing any and asking rhetorical questions. Yeah, ok. Meanwhile, I can cite this Wiki article regarding their formation.

"Oath Keepers was founded in March 2009 by Stewart Rhodes. Rhodes is a Yale Law School graduate, a former US Army paratrooper, and a former staffer of Congressman Ron Paul. Rhodes is reported to have taken inspiration from the idea that Hitler could have been stopped if German soldiers and police had refused to follow orders."

Wants to prevent another Hitler from coming to power. Clearly a fascist right there.

 

[esms]

It becomes tiring hearing non-Americans tell Americans how they should and shouldn't live.

Pretty much.

 

[n00bsauce87]

So is this like a 2015 version of Operation Black Shield? Or they really feel that black people should express their 2nd amendment rights.

I always thought that right wing militias and militant black people could be strange bed fellows. If they want to rally behind 2nd amendment rights and/or corrupt government.

 

[Walpurgis]

And yet America is significantly more racist and with worse race relations than countries with highly strict gun control.

How many countries carry a recent history of slavery and oppression as recent as the 19th Century that treated black Americans as chattel?

Have those countries also had issues where the local police force became militarized and well equipped against its own citizens?

It seems the goal posts have moved or you aren't actually arguing with Hyperion because you have said nothing to disprove his original claim.