• 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
11,995
Location
White Oak Plantation
...

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?

...

Charles
Interesting position...

You are right, I would react to what I perceive as a threat...then again, you could be reacting to me because you believe that I am a threat. So, where does this leave us, we both believe we are right and need to defend ourselves. All this would need to be sorted out by the cops and courts of course, after the fact...if we both survive the encounter that is.

Kind of like a cop is screwed no matter what he does, right? He sees a kid getting snatched up by a adult and tossed into a car. Is it the kids parent or a pervert. The cop has the luxury of not having to decide one way or the other. QI is there if it was the kids parent and not a perv...his goof is mitigated and the parent is harmed by his goof. If it was a perv, he is a hero.

I do not believe in minor "inconveniences" by the state as the price we must pay for safety. Unfortunately the courts do not hold my opinion as their own.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
Hell if you aren't slippery...***** ****.

If you fire a warning shot into the ground, then your "target" and your target are the ground. QED.

Discharging a firearm, in the vicinity of others or not, is not ipso facto "use of deadly force". In fact, one could argue that intent to shoot the ground coupled with actual shooting of the ground (and no person) is ipso facto not "use of deadly force".

And why the hell are we even talking about "shots across the bow"? This is another of your red herrings. No shots were fired outside the California State Assembly on May 2, 1967.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Interesting position...

You are right, I would react to what I perceive as a threat...
Then you cannot expect others to do differently. Nor should the law remain powerless to cite as a crime against which you admit you believe you have a right to use deadly force.

then again, you could be reacting to me because you believe that I am a threat. So, where does this leave us, we both believe we are right and need to defend ourselves. All this would need to be sorted out by the cops and courts of course, after the fact...if we both survive the encounter that is.
And this all provides good reason why an armed society ought to be a polite society. If nearly everyone you and I (or the Black Panthers, or the wing nuts in Washington) met were armed and as prepared to defend themselves as we are ourselves, we'd have compelling reason not to give anyone anything close to justifiable, reasonable cause to believe we intended to harm them. We'd avoid "brandishing" our guns. We'd probably avoid some of the bravado, machoism, and insults that might tend to cause a reasonable man to think a real threat exists even before we reach for our gun.

I would like to think that the relative absence of the types of cases you allude to is currently due to civility and prudence on the part of those who carry, rather than due to the relatively low numbers of persons who carry meaning that the odds of two armed strangers interacting being very low.

Kind of like a cop is screwed no matter what he does, right? He sees a kid getting snatched up by a adult and tossed into a car. Is it the kids parent or a pervert. The cop has the luxury of not having to decide one way or the other. QI is there if it was the kids parent and not a perv...his goof is mitigated and the parent is harmed by his goof. If it was a perv, he is a hero.
And without QI does the cop errs on the side of not intervening lest he place his home, savings, and freedom at risk? At which point, what is point of having cops at all?

Rather than looking at it as a matter of cop vs parents, look at it as a matter of relative risk and harm.

If the cop does nothing, the risk to the child is immense. Kids tossed into cars by strangers tend never to be seen alive again. They also tend to endure unspeakable acts before they are murdered.

If the cop intervenes professionally, the risk to the parents is minimal. A few moments for the cop to make reasonable sure they are parents and that he is merely witnessing a temper tantrum rather than a kidnapping or child abuse. The "harm" to the parent is measured in a few minutes of inconvenience.

Of course, the cop could choose to intervene in a way that is not reasonable nor professional. I consider that a different discussion. That some may consider it the central discussion probably shows where our respective biases lie.

I do not believe in minor "inconveniences" by the state as the price we must pay for safety. Unfortunately the courts do not hold my opinion as their own.
Neither do I. I do not believe in sacrificing freedom for safety. But neither do I think that anarchy, absence of laws, or an impotent police force will yield either freedom or safety anymore than sacrificing safety for freedom will yield either.

Slowing through a school zone is a bit of an inconvenience when I'm in a hurry. A dead or crippled child--including possibly my own--would be far worse and is a real risk in a school zone. A 3 minute stop by a cop making sure I'm the parent of the screaming child I just dragged from the store is inconvenient. Not having that stop if my kid is dragged out by someone else, is way more "inconvenient."

If an officer stops me for doing 70 in what he thinks is a 55 zone, but it was he and not I who missed the last speed limit sign, I suffer some mild inconvenience. Assuming an honest mistake on his part rather than some malice or deliberate attempt to skirt the law or violate my rights, I don't need a pound a flesh or a career ended. A simple apology will get frank forgiveness from me in such cases.

When I make a mild mistake and exceed a posted speed limit, or unintentionally violate a noise ordinance, or have a burned out tail light (or a popped fuse that blacks out the entire rear end of my trailer), I hope not to be subjected to some cruel or unusual punishment. I hope and expect the penalty will be in line with the violation, taking into account my intent and my record. A one time mistake from an otherwise law abiding citizen ought to be treated with more mercy than the same mistake that is just the latest in a long line of violations from a perpetual problem person.

I take the same view with police officers and others.

There are some problems that need to be corrected. There are some bad cops that need to be removed from their positions of power and trust. Would that otherwise good cops would help out the bad cops.

But I do not view my local police department nor officers as my enemies. I hope you don't. It is a shame that some, seemingly do.

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,910
Location
North Carolina
I will defend my family and myself from violent criminals. I don't give a damn if they work for the government or not. Why should I let my wife be raped or killed because of a badge?

This is getting beyond ridicules that it is implied we must submit to violence just because it is the government.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
[redact profanity] if you aren't [redact personal insult]
Your description of me is insulting and attacking. Please edit to comport with both your own abilities to express yourself civilly as well as with the rules of conduct for this forum.

Please also check if you are not getting overly emotive on this subject. I have not accused you of criminal conduct. I have expressed my opinion that the conduct of some third party individuals is closer to "brandishing" or "threatening with a gun" than to simple OC.


If you fire a warning shot into the ground, then your "target" and your target are the ground. QED.

Discharging a firearm, in the vicinity of others or not, is not ipso facto "use of deadly force". In fact, one could argue that intent to shoot the ground coupled with actual shooting of the ground (and no person) is ipso facto not "use of deadly force".
Hence reason I put "target" into quotes. I trust my intended meaning was clear to one with your reading comprehension and intellectual abilities.

Intent matters. And there are often other laws to consider. Many cities prohibit discharging a gun. Discharge in self defense would be an exemption or defense.

If you shoot near me with the revealed or demonstrable intent to threaten me, or with negligence for my safety, you may well have placed yourself into an unpleasant legal position.

And why the [mild profanity redacted] are we even talking about "shots across the bow"? This is another of your red herrings. No shots were fired outside the California State Assembly on May 2, 1967.
You know exactly why we are talking about it. We are talking about it because sudden valley gunner has repeatedly justified using firearms to "implicitly" threaten legislators. That is the proverbial shot across the bow. You implicitly agreed in post 70 in this thread; and explicitly agreed that implicitly threatening legislators was appropriate in your post 42.

If you'd like now like to back away from that position and instead argue there was no intent to threaten, it was a purely peaceful 1st amendment expression, then we can have a different discussion: one centered on reasonable man perceptions.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I will defend my family and myself from violent criminals. I don't give a damn if they work for the government or not. Why should I let my wife be raped or killed because of a badge?

This is getting beyond ridicules that it is implied we must submit to violence just because it is the government.
I don't see anyone suggesting that we should submit to illegal violence perpetuated by the government.

I do see some folks as much as asserting that government agents, officers, and elected officials should be required to submit to threats of violence that would have most here clearing leather.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Shots over the bow are akin to our firing warning shots - definitely fraught with problems and potential liability, both criminal and civil.
Exactly. Not something the private citizen should typically do even when facing a potential threat of violence. And most certainly out of bounds for "political activism".

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I don't know what your motivations are.But it's clear that the societal/legislative reaction to the Black Panthers was indeed partly based on race, and it's also certain that others who have made the claims you're making about the '67 protest do possess racist motivations.
Since you've admitted you don't know my motivations, and since you have responded directly to me on this subject, I will ask you to refrain from any further use of the logical fallacy of "loaded questions" via thinly veiled accusations of my intent.

To treat me in a negative way based on how others sharing some unimportant trait may have acted in the past seems very similar to bigotry.

You should be better than that.

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,910
Location
North Carolina
I don't see anyone suggesting that we should submit to illegal violence perpetuated by the government.

I do see some folks as much as asserting that government agents, officers, and elected officials should be required to submit to threats of violence that would have most here clearing leather.

Charles
Really?!?

Because that IS the the way I take it!

2A is not, and has never been about self defense from people, that is what laws are for. It is, was, and always has been about self defense from government. And if it takes a gun in the face to stop a rape, too frigging bad! No matter who the hell it is! I am getting so tired of this submit to violence by government claim!

What is the number one reason most of us OC. IMO it is deterrence, but yet YOU believe government is exempt from being deterred by the sight of firearms.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Really?!?

Because that IS the the way I take it!
I believe you are mistaken in my intent.

2A is not, and has never been about self defense from people, that is what laws are for. It is, was, and always has been about self defense from government. And if it takes a gun in the face to stop a rape, too frigging bad! No matter who the hell it is! I am getting so tired of this submit to violence by government claim!

What is the number one reason most of us OC. IMO it is deterrence, but yet YOU believe government is exempt from being deterred by the sight of firearms.
In the first place, I believe jumping to the "rape" analogy is poor form. As bad as current excesses from our government may be, I doubt very seriously that an actual rape survivor would ever compare the two. Given your prior profession, you should be acutely aware of this and know better.

Government is not exempt from being deterred by the sight of firearms. Knowing there are some 300 million guns in private hands in this nation, knowing that tens of millions of persons have permits specifically so they can carry for self defense and millions more legally carry without permits, and tens of millions beyond that are buying and using hunting licenses presents a powerful deterrence to government excess. See Madison's Federalist #46 on this front. But note that the numerical superiority of the citizen militia over any standing army is provided in the same breath as the attachment of citizens to their local and State governments as all being deterrences against federal mis-use of the professional army authorized by the Constitution.

Seeing arms OCd might well present additional deterrence for certain legislators.

But brandishing of arms, the proverbial shot across the bow is not an appropriate means to deter anyone.

If the criminal (private or government) actually poses imminent, serious risk, use deadly force as needed to stop the threat.

If the criminal (private or government) doesn't pose an imminent, serious risk, any use of deadly force is legally and morally wrong. Period.

You would not tolerate someone threatening you with a gun (even implicitly) as you entered the voting booth. It matters not how strongly that person believed your vote for the "wrong" candidate would harm them at some point in the future. Even if they believed your mere act of voting was giving legitimacy to the election and that would harm them, they do not get to threaten you with a gun. You wouldn't stand for it. Legislators should not stand for it either.

The first amendment does not protect a right to make an overt threat of violence a legislator. Neither does the 2nd amendment. Ownership and possession of arms provides a deterrence, the ability to use guns in defense should deadly force be needed. It does not entitle anyone, of his own accord to use deadly force or threats of deadly force against legislators because we don't like some of the laws they pass. And a dozen friends doesn't change that equation.

Convince a few thousand of your fellow citizens to join you and we may have a very different situation in terms of legitimacy. Of course, properly applied, a few thousand citizens actively involved in the political process may have much longer lasting effects for good than they could by showing up brandishing guns at the legislature.

Charles
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
You know exactly why we are talking about it. We are talking about it because sudden valley gunner has repeatedly justified using firearms to "implicitly" threaten legislators. That is the proverbial shot across the bow. You implicitly agreed in post 70 in this thread; and explicitly agreed that implicitly threatening legislators was appropriate in your post 42.

If you'd like now like to back away from that position and instead argue there was no intent to threaten, it was a purely peaceful 1st amendment expression, then we can have a different discussion: one centered on reasonable man perceptions.
You lie, again. "Threatening the legislature" was your straw man. I merely responded to it (fool that I am) for being so inane.

I said, and I quote:

But, regardless of its political advisability, there is nothing criminal about what the Black Panthers did, and so to label it as "brandishing" is, at best, question-begging.

As far as "intimidating the legislature" goes, tough. The 2A should intimidate a legislature who contemplates the sort of thing contemplated by that in Sacramento.

But, you're twisting the history anyway. The Black Panther protest was against an already-proposed bill to ban loaded OC, which was prompted by their citizen patrols successfully mitigating abuses by the OPD (as well as helping with general crime in their neighborhoods).
From which any idiot could deduce that my position has been, quite consistently, that the BPP was never "threatening the legislature". If the legislature felt "implicitly" threatened, that's on them in precisely the same manner as it's on the Mad Mom who feels "implicitly threatened" by holstered handgun OC.

Of course, the 2A is an "implicit threat" to a legislature, but only, one might say, a "bad" legislature who infringes right (specifically, the right to life). But that's completely independent of the actions of the BPP or anybody else. Nobody has to do anything for that to be true; it's simply an inherent fact. But, OC is also an "implicit threat" against would-be robbers, rapists, and assorted miscreants of any description. And, again, this is on them the same as it's on the Mad Mom.

I'm pretty much done responding to you, and for that matter I'm pretty much done with this site so long as you insist on polluting it with your facile windbagging, squirming, conflating, twisting, and non sequituring. You've intentionally twisted and conflated my arguments, which you're perfectly capable of understanding, for the sole purpose of winning points against the straw man of your own creation. Evidently this is all pursuant to your grand agenda to systematically counter what you apparently see as minarchist/anarchist sentiment "corrupting" 2A advocacy (as though the two aren't inextricably linked).

Well, you win, Charles. You can have 2A advocacy; I'm out. I have precisely zero tolerance for your eye95ian lying disguised under the passive-aggressive facade of false civility. My willingness to "stand with" you or otherwise work together is irrelevant; it's completely impossible to be on the same side in any respect whatsoever as someone so utterly dishonest and, yes, ***** as you are.

Go ahead, accuse me of "emoting" for, once and for all, calling it like I've seen it all along. Go ahead, twist my argument into a straw man, and bash it. Hell, you can even report me for "personal insults". I really don't care, as I no longer have any interest in any further association with you, or any "community" which permits you as a member. As I said, you win. You can have the last lie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Submit, submit, submit~....
I'm afraid you misunderstand my position, WalkingWolf.

I simply believe we should use the correct tool for the job....That whole hammer/nail thing.

The proper (and legal, civil, effective) tool to intimidate legislators into doing the right thing is our vote, not a gun in hand.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
....what you apparently see as minarchist/anarchist sentiment "corrupting" 2A advocacy (as though the two aren't inextricably linked).
Demonstrably, RKBA and support for anarchy are no more linked than is RKBA and any given position on abortion, immigration, federal land policy in the Western US, foreign policy, UFOs, medical or recreational marijuana, the proper definition of marriage, etc ad infinitum.

That you are unable to concede that one can strongly support RKBA while holding a different position than you do on any of these positions has caused you some significant stress that is manifesting in a most impolite, improper post.

My willingness to "stand with" you or otherwise work together is irrelevant; it's completely impossible to be on the same side in any respect whatsoever as someone so [insult redacted from quote] as you are.
The inability of some quarters of the RKBA movement to make and maintain workable coalitions with others who support RKBA but disagree on some peripheral issue remains one of our biggest weaknesses. It nearly cost us everything in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s. The federal scary looking gun ban of '94 woke us up, and talk radio provided some assistance with knowing we were not alone. With the Internet came a much greater ability to communicate directly with each other and, sadly, an increased opportunity to offend each other over matters that have very little to do with our core goals.

That it manifests so frequently from among the libertarian/minarchist/anarchist portion of the RKBA community probably provides some insights into part of the reason why those philosophies have such a hard time gaining political traction. Political success requires forming coalitions among folks who do not agre 100%. There are clearly those who have a very hard time with any level of disagreement, no matter how calmly, rationally, or civilly expressed.

Go ahead, accuse me of "emoting" for, once and for all, calling it like I've seen it all along.
It is a shame to see such conduct from you. But your openness reveals the basis for what appears to have been an increasing level of hostility and thinly veiled ugly accusations against me.

I hope you can find peace.

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,910
Location
North Carolina
I'm afraid you misunderstand my position, WalkingWolf.

I simply believe we should use the correct tool for the job....That whole hammer/nail thing.

The proper (and legal, civil, effective) tool to intimidate legislators into doing the right thing is our vote, not a gun in hand.

Charles
Submit would seem to be that tool.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Submit would seem to be that tool.
Only for those who believe that voting and other political activism don't work. You've made very clear that you don't believe that.

So while we may disagree on the propriety and legality of carrying guns in hand as a threat (implicit or otherwise) against legislators, we are agreed that lawful, peaceful political involvement, including voting works.

A gun is but one tool. Just as cops should not reach for it when another tool is more effective and less damaging, neither should the RKBA/OC activist.

All the best.

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,910
Location
North Carolina
Only for those who believe that voting and other political activism don't work. You've made very clear that you don't believe that.

So while we may disagree on the propriety and legality of carrying guns in hand as a threat (implicit or otherwise) against legislators, we are agreed that lawful, peaceful political involvement, including voting works.

A gun is but one tool. Just as cops should not reach for it when another tool is more effective and less damaging, neither should the RKBA/OC activist.

All the best.

Charles
I am not talking about that and you know it. You also have seen me post about voting, and while our options are handicapped it is prudent that we vote.

NOW to get back to your claims that after the fact of being abused by a government agent one can become whole in the courts after they have been robbed, murdered, raped, lynched by a government agent. Because THAT IS what the Black Panthers are standing up to, and you insult them with hogwash about brandishing. Clearly YOU would rather the black man submit than stand up to the abuse. That IS the whole purpose of 2A, not self defense from individuals, but self defense from government violence. And the carrying of arms is that deterrence, if you are against it, you should not carry to deter criminals. Because those that put harm ARE criminals.

Every time you demean the people, any people, but especially black people I want to throw up.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I am not talking about that and you know it.
No, WalkingWolf. I'm afraid you have not made yourself clear. Your brevity is a gift. But it sometimes leaves me guessing at what you mean.

You also have seen me post about voting, and while our options are handicapped it is prudent that we vote.
Agreed.

NOW to get back to your claims that after the fact of being abused by a government agent one can become whole in the courts after they have been robbed, murdered, raped, lynched by a government agent.
I'm certain I've never made that claim. And given the severe nature of it, I must ask you to provide a quote to any post I've made in which you believe I've written anything that could be reasonably construed in that way.

While I have maintained that the proper recourse for minor offenses is the courts, I have conceded that there is a line which if crossed by police would justify being defended against with force. Clearly, murder, rape, and lynching would all be well over that line. Robbery is generally understood to be loss of money or property and that wrong can, most often, be compensated after the fact.

Because THAT IS what the Black Panthers are standing up to, and you insult them with hogwash about brandishing. Clearly YOU would rather the black man submit than stand up to the abuse. That IS the whole purpose of 2A, not self defense from individuals, but self defense from government violence. And the carrying of arms is that deterrence, if you are against it, you should not carry to deter criminals. Because those that put harm ARE criminals.

Every time you demean the people, any people, but especially black people I want to throw up.
I do not demean blacks nor any other racial group. I do hold racist, terrorist, and treasonous organizations in utter contempt. That includes the KKK (the Mormons were hated nearly as much by the pointy hatted cowards as were Catholic, Jews, and blacks), skin heads, the Weather Underground, radical animal rights groups that destroy private property, radical environmentalists that spike trees or sabotage heavy equipment, and the black panthers both old and new. Voter intimidation against whites today is no less offensive than was voting intimidation against blacks in the 60s and 70s.

And even as much as I believe the black panthers were a violent, racist organization, you've never seen me criticize them or other blacks for carrying long guns in public as allowed by Cali law at the time. The efforts to provide visible over watch of police conduct was clearly needed.

But nobody in the legislative gallery that day in '67 was being abused by a cop. There was no imminent risk of violence to anyone in that gallery. The guns carried in hand were not a defense against imminent violence, but were an overt threat against legislators.

We will not agree on the legality or morality of that.

But history is clear that it created some serious backlash that continues to harm citizens (black, white, and otherwise) in Cali to this day.

If a shooting war is truly needed, then one is advised to wage it with gusto and to win.

If a shooting war is not needed, then one is advised to avoid starting it, and to instead use other, more effective tools.

Maybe some see history differently. But it is clear to me that the peaceful tactics of the Reverend MLK yielded much better, longer lasting results than did the violence of the Black Panthers, the racial hatred of Malcolm X, the burning of cities, the LA riots, the looting of Ferguson.

Once a person decides to engage in violent crime, there is good evidence that a black man is LESS likely than is a white man to be shot by police officers these days.

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,910
Location
North Carolina
There was no overt threat, unless you consider open carry a overt threat. Do you?

Just quick from Wiki

The Black Panther Party or BPP (originally the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) was a revolutionary black nationalist and socialist organization[1][2] active in the United States from 1966 until 1982, with its only international chapter operating in Algeria from 1969 until 1972.[3]

Initially, the Black Panther Party's core practice was its armed citizens' patrols to monitor the behavior of police officers and challenge police brutality. In 1969, community social programs became a core activity of party members.[4] The Black Panther Party instituted a variety of community social programs, most extensively the Free Breakfast for Children Programs, and community health clinics.[5][6][7]

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country",[8] and he supervised an extensive program (COINTELPRO) of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment, and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members, discredit and criminalize the Party, and drain the organization of resources and manpower. The program was also accused of using assassination against Black Panther members.[9][10][11][12]

Government oppression initially contributed to the growth of the party as killings and arrests of Panthers increased support for the party within the black community and on the broad political left, both of whom valued the Panthers as powerful force opposed to de facto segregation and the military draft. Black Panther Party membership reached a peak in 1970, with offices in 68 cities and thousands of members, then suffered a series of contractions. After being vilified by the mainstream press, public support for the party waned, and the group became more isolated.[13] In-fighting among Party leadership, caused largely by the FBI's COINTRELPRO operation, led to expulsions and defections that decimated the membership.[14] Popular support for the Party declined further after reports appeared detailing the group's involvement in illegal activities such as drug dealing and extortion schemes directed against Oakland merchants.[15] By 1972 most Panther activity centered on the national headquarters and a school in Oakland, where the party continued to influence local politics. Party contractions continued throughout the 1970s. By 1980 the Black Panther Party had just 27 members.[16]

The history of the Black Panther Party is controversial. Scholars have characterized the Black Panther Party as the most influential black movement organization of the late 1960s, and "the strongest link between the domestic Black Liberation Struggle and global opponents of American imperialism."[17] Other commentators have described the Party as more criminal than political, characterized by "defiant posturing over substance."[18]
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
Opposing views or differences of opinions are not in and of themselves stifled on OCDO. What is not tolerated are personal insults and character attacks. We try very hard to be an "open" forum where discussion can take place - limited by the purpose of OCDO and our the rules/policies.

I think that much of the apparent present disagreement is in the perception of the viewer.....and that is a very personal thing. Some of what has been written here is purely argumentative and serves no constructive purpose.

Let's get back to the work that really needs our attention and stop rolling in the muck. Okay?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top