• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Huff Post - Black Men Openly Carrying Guns in Holsters Will End Racial Profiling

Status
Not open for further replies.

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,110
Location
White Oak Plantation
And I should hope nobody here would need to have the difference between a defensive action and an offensive action explained to them. But the very fact you posted this here after I asserted that the '67 Black Panther incident was brandishing, suggests, sadly, that too many don't understand the difference.

So much for any regard for Heinlein's much abused quote.

Charles
You claiming that the 1967 incident shows brandishing does not make it so. Luck of the law perhaps? To my knowledge not firearms related chargers were applied, or reported. I'm not sure brandishing a firearm, as a legal concept, existed back then. It could have, I don't know. Either way you clearly apply this legal concept, brandishing, to that 1967 event.

Unarmed folks have been charged with intimidation, how can this be.

Yet, the gun, being different, as you clearly illustrate, deserves to remain different, as you clearly illustrate. No big deal.

In Ferguson those photos show me citizens exercising their 2A on private property peacefully. You see something different it seems.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Not my words, and I am certainly not advocating violence. You know me better than that. The article is interesting and it is open carry related. Civil disobedience is a part of our history.

ETA we should be welcoming the black community to our fold, not pushing them away. Want non violence then support non violence, and be willing to step up for those who are most abused, BY VIOLENCE.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Plus just what do you think the second amendment means? Without the threat of violence to secure a free state the second means NOTHING! The founders made it quite clear what they intended. You cannot separate the first phrase of the 2A from the second phrase.
My apologies if it appeared I was directing my response directly to you. The link precipitated the reference.

Self defense (immediate need) is accepted and understood. Planned physical violence in response to a past event or as a preemptive measure is NOT acceptable. Therein rests the difference - hence application of the forum rule.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
My apologies if it appeared I was directing my response directly to you. The link precipitated the reference.

Self defense (immediate need) is accepted and understood. Planned physical violence in response to a past event or as a preemptive measure is NOT acceptable. Therein rests the difference - hence application of the forum rule.
So, basically, you decided to drop a nice non sequitur on us to derail the discussion. Got it.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
My apologies if it appeared I was directing my response directly to you. The link precipitated the reference.

Self defense (immediate need) is accepted and understood. Planned physical violence in response to a past event or as a preemptive measure is NOT acceptable. Therein rests the difference - hence application of the forum rule.
If you listen to their video you would clearly see they are talking about self defense. Unless I missed it I didn't see anything advocating planned violence. And while I do not agree with some of the NBP platform, I agree with their constitution stance.

Not only that WE NEED THEM! No other minority votes in the type of block that they do. Some of us, that includes you call for voting to protect our rights. Yet we should disenfranchise a huge block that could change a election because they are blunt and honest?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
You claiming that the 1967 incident shows brandishing does not make it so.
Then by the same token, those who claim it wasn't brandishing doesn't mean it wasn't.

Whatever language might be used to describe it, it is well understood that handling a gun in such a way as to cause intimidation to another, other than as a means of self-defense against an imminent, credible threat, is inappropriate and generally illegal. Where exactly that occurs can be open for debate. But somewhere between having a gun in a holster and pointing it at me without cause, is a line between peacefully carrying a gun for self-defense and brandishing or even assault.

Several on this forum who are the quickest to defend the conduct in '67 Cali or recently in Washington are quick to concede that the guns were carried in a show of force intended to intimidate. They simply try to justify that intimidation as being justified in some way.

In Ferguson those photos show me citizens exercising their 2A on private property peacefully. You see something different it seems.
I think you have misunderstood me. Business owners carrying guns on their private property in defense against an emerging threat is entirely justified. Indeed, given a numerically superior mob with demonstrated tendencies to smash, loot, and burn private property and to injure or kill anyone defending it, a certain level of intimidation factor on the part of the gun carrying property owner would be justified, while a similar level would not be justified in a State legislature.

Indeed, while defense of property is generally not worthy of using deadly force against another human, when civil law breaks down and there is no hope at all for police assistance, I think the rules change a bit. I'm fully supportive of shop owners protecting their property and livelihood. That was true during the LA riots; it was true during Ferguson. As we have seen, in such cases, the obvious threat of lethal force generally prevents both damage to property and the need to use deadly force.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Resisting with arms is the essence of the 2A.
Shots over the bow are for the navy. Attempted intimidation of public officials with firearms is both inappropriate and in a couple of cases now, demonstrably counter-productive.

Bumper sticker logic is not the solution.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
If you listen to their video you would clearly see they are talking about self defense. Unless I missed it I didn't see anything advocating planned violence. And while I do not agree with some of the NBP platform, I agree with their constitution stance.

Not only that WE NEED THEM! No other minority votes in the type of block that they do. Some of us, that includes you call for voting to protect our rights. Yet we should disenfranchise a huge block that could change a election because they are blunt and honest?
Self defense against current violence or imminent and credible threats of violence is a fundamental human right, protected by the 2nd amendment.

Retribution for past violence, or using intimidation to prevent exercise of constitutional rights, including voter suppression is illegal. The New Black Panthers are probably as racist an organization as the KKK or skin heads. Back in the 60s, the Reverend MLK advocated strictly for non-violent civil disobedience. The Black Panthers and others argued violence was necessary. No surprise that some continue to claim it was required, to write history in a way that conforms to their views.

The RKBA community has no more need for association with the New (or old) Black Panthers than it does with the KKK, Skin Heads, or a(ny other) domestic terrorist organization.

We would benefit greatly from having more minority voices and votes with us. RKBA would greatly benefit blacks, especially poor blacks living in dangerous inner city neighborhoods. RKBA would likewise benefit homosexuals (see the pink pistol movement), Jews, women, the elderly, handicapped, and other unpopular or vulnerable groups. And their voices and votes would certainly benefit RKBA. I would love for the Democrats to adopt RKBA as the next important civil right that must be defended against intrusive government over-reach. It is one thing for the media or a legislator to dismiss supposed concerns about violent crimes from a healthy, strapping, 40 year old white man living in a upper-middle class gated community. Their reaction is markedly different when faced with someone in a wheelchair who says simply, "I can't run away." Or when a rape survivor proclaims, "Never again." Or when a homosexual says, "I may not survive the gay bashing assault. I have to be able to defend myself."

Charles
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith
Paris Aug. 30. 1787.

"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Originally Posted by utbagpiper

Shots over the bow are for the navy.
Shots over the bow are akin to our firing warning shots - definitely fraught with problems and potential liability, both criminal and civil.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith
Paris Aug. 30. 1787.

"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
While Mr. Jefferson is held in high regard, he's words are not perfect for all applications and in all places.

OCDO has made it quite clear where we stand on this issue. Tread very lightly on that ground - there is a price to be paid.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,110
Location
White Oak Plantation
...But somewhere between having a gun in a holster and pointing it at me without cause, is a line between peacefully carrying a gun for self-defense and brandishing or even assault. ...
In 67, and in the WA state house recently, was it alleged that those folks "pointed a gun at anyone."

...Charles
I get it, your definition of brandishing is very different than mine. In fact I reject the whole premise of brandishing as a violation of the law. Just to set the record straight as to my position on this topic. I believe that the actual violation of a citizen's rights must be addressed by the state. Holding a violator accountable after the fact if you will. Holding a citizen accountable for a "could've violated another citizen's rights" is counter to liberty in my view.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Ladies and gentlemen - we must avoid personal attacks and address the issue(s).

Do not seek to diminish others by suggesting that they "lied" but rather that they got the facts wrong. We must maintain the high road in dealing with others - in fact OCDO insists on it.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
Shots over the bow are akin to our firing warning shots - definitely fraught with problems and potential liability, both criminal and civil.
It's interesting that, the 2A doesn't apply to the navy though. Oh it is fraught with problems, and it should be avoided, but it is a recognized and enumerated right not to be infringed. Which also implies the right to use that right.

A shot over the bow to me is a warning if you continue this path it won't be good for you. I cannot seem to understand the logic (or lack of) that would hold the people who exercise their rights in issuing a similar proclamation to their "rulers".
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
It's interesting that, the 2A doesn't apply to the navy though. Oh it is fraught with problems, and it should be avoided, but it is a recognized and enumerated right not to be infringed. Which also implies the right to use that right.

A shot over the bow to me is a warning if you continue this path it won't be good for you. I cannot seem to understand the logic (or lack of) that would hold the people who exercise their rights in issuing a similar proclamation to their "rulers".
I understand completely your rationale, but cannot find an exception in the Forum Rules that would allow for such as justification for breaking our rules and any laws pertaining.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
utbagpiper said:
...But somewhere between having a gun in a holster and pointing it at me without cause, is a line between peacefully carrying a gun for self-defense and brandishing or even assault. ...
In 67, and in the WA state house recently, was it alleged that those folks "pointed a gun at anyone."
Not so far as I know. Nor did I allege that anyone did.

Please note my post with some highlighting added. I trust we all agree that a gun in a holster is peaceful and should be lawful. I trust we also all agree that pointing a gun at me is a threat of imminent violence and a crime (lacking some legal justification for such violence).

I believe and assert that the line between lawful and criminal conduct can occur before a gun is pointed at me.

I get it, your definition of brandishing is very different than mine. In fact I reject the whole premise of brandishing as a violation of the law. Just to set the record straight as to my position on this topic. I believe that the actual violation of a citizen's rights must be addressed by the state. Holding a violator accountable after the fact if you will. Holding a citizen accountable for a "could've violated another citizen's rights" is counter to liberty in my view.
Are you willing to abide that standard when the force or threat of force is directed against you or your loved ones rather than against an employee or agent of the government?

My rights are violated sometime before I am actually injured. I have a right not to be injured by another. I also have a right not to be threatened with unlawful use of force.

As an analogy, your right to swing your fist does not end at my nose, but at the point that I (or rather the proverbial "reasonable man" standing in my place) have reasonable cause to believe you are swinging your fist at my nose.

Now, this doesn't mean I have some right to "feel safe", which is really some supposed right not to be offended nor to see anything that I might find slightly disagreeable. But I do have a right not to be subjected to conduct that a reasonable man would reasonably believe constitutes a threat of unlawful violence against me. Reasonable men are subject to the paranoid delusions that befall hoplophobes and others with severe mental illness. The mere sight of a gun, properly holstered causes reasonable men no concerns, absent some behavior that is alarming (think obviously intoxicated man with gun on hip, or armed man engaged in very threatening speech).

When fellow in the parking garage who looks like a meth addict asks for cash and keeps advancing despite my clear verbal indication I don't have any for him and for him to "back off", I'm going to wait for him to get close enough to engage in a physical struggle or to stick me with a knife before I access my firearm. If low ready doesn't cause him to back off, and if I cannot safely put more distance between us, I'm acquiring a target and ending the threat. I'm not waiting to be injured to seek redress, I'm going to do my level best to avoid incurring injury.

I expect most others here have similar plans.

If a gun is visible, I'm not going to wait for the guy to shoot at me. I'm not going to wait for him to put his finger on the trigger after pointing the gun at me. I'm not even going to wait for him to point the gun at me under many circumstances. Waving it around in my general direction, or in a manner that I can only reasonably interpret as a threat toward me is going to be more than sufficient.

Do you honestly intend to react differently?

When I speak of "brandishing" I am not talking about some arbitrary and perhaps unreasonable language intended to appease hoplophobes. I'm talking about the point at which I--and I think most others here--will at least be seeking escape, cover, or concealment, if not reaching for their own guns.

Do you really intend to wait until after you have incurred some physical injury to take action? And if not, by what rationale do you expect legislators to do differently or the law to remain powerless until after the point at which you would act?

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
A shot over the bow to me is a warning if you continue this path it won't be good for you. I cannot seem to understand the logic (or lack of) that would hold the people who exercise their rights in issuing a similar proclamation to their "rulers".
So long as we retain freely elected representatives, the proper proclamation to elected officials is replace them at the ballot box when needed. Once one has successfully done this a time or two, he can credibly remind other elected officials of his willingness and ability to do so again if needed. (Lacking such success, one is blowing hot air anyway.) Brandishing against legislators is for those who are too impotent, incompetent, or lazy to effect real change via lawful, proper methods such as the ballot box.

Threats of violence are unbecoming, unnecessary, unproductive (as evidenced by at least a couple of historic examples), and illegal.

Empty threats of violence are as pathetic as Obamas "lines in the sand" that mean nothing.

I say again, warning shots are for navies, not for individuals properly exercising their RKBA.

If there is an imminent, credible threat, don't waste ammo with a warning shot. If there isn't, use of deadly force is not legally nor morally justified even if you don't intend to hit the intended "target" of your warning shot.

Charles
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top