• 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.

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
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.
I think we have done well over the years. Recognizing and discussing the actual implications and meaning of the 2A is not the same as advocating for armed rebellion or criminal actions. It may cause the overly jingoistic chaotic spasms that how dare anyone discuss the right to overthrow or resist the government. The same way a discussion of the right to resist arrest even to taking a life of the officer, isn't actually advocating killing officers. My hope is that education and an awareness of these rights along with other rights and the not throwing anyone under the bus and demonizing those who attempt to exercise these fundamental rights would lead to a peaceful restriction of the state back to their proper place.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,898
Location
North Carolina
I think we have done well over the years. Recognizing and discussing the actual implications and meaning of the 2A is not the same as advocating for armed rebellion or criminal actions. It may cause the overly jingoistic chaotic spasms that how dare anyone discuss the right to overthrow or resist the government. The same way a discussion of the right to resist arrest even to taking a life of the officer, isn't actually advocating killing officers. My hope is that education and an awareness of these rights along with other rights and the not throwing anyone under the bus and demonizing those who attempt to exercise these fundamental rights would lead to a peaceful restriction of the state back to their proper place.
+1
 

MarkS

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
27
Location
Colorado
No Guns for N egros

Several years ago, the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership produced a 20 minute video -- No Guns for N egros -- that argued that gun laws systematically denied blacks the right of self defense.

It's worth watching if you have not seen it

http://nogunsforAfrican Americanes.com/
 

MarkS

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
27
Location
Colorado
Political Correctnesss

When you type N egros or N egroes without the space, the forum software converts that to African Americans <sigh> Even the URL converts N egroes (without the space) to African American.

The URL address is

http://nogunsforn egroes.com/ (remove the space)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,933
Location
White Oak Plantation
I think we have done well over the years. ...
Well stated.

I have yet to find a single top cop advocate that a citizen being physically abused by a "bad cop" (always determined after the abuse by the way) to defend themselves with equal or greater force to stop the abuse at the hands of a bad cop...not one. I only hear, repeatedly, "submit" to the officers orders and let a civil action make the abused citizen whole.

No amount of money from the state will bring back the dead or repair the permanent injury. QI makes better cops and better cops don't need QI.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I have yet to find a single top cop advocate that a citizen being physically abused by a "bad cop" (always determined after the abuse by the way) to defend themselves with equal or greater force to stop the abuse at the hands of a bad cop...not one. I only hear, repeatedly, "submit" to the officers orders and let a civil action make the abused citizen whole.
The typical advice doesn't do you much good when you're being beaten past that last inch of your life.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,347
Location
Valhalla
The typical advice doesn't do you much good when you're being beaten past that last inch of your life.
Gives new meaning to "Be still my beating heart" does it not?

Excusa please - I must go give penance for that remark.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,898
Location
North Carolina
Well stated.

I have yet to find a single top cop advocate that a citizen being physically abused by a "bad cop" (always determined after the abuse by the way) to defend themselves with equal or greater force to stop the abuse at the hands of a bad cop...not one. I only hear, repeatedly, "submit" to the officers orders and let a civil action make the abused citizen whole.

No amount of money from the state will bring back the dead or repair the permanent injury. QI makes better cops and better cops don't need QI.
+1
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
Well stated.

I have yet to find a single top cop advocate that a citizen being physically abused by a "bad cop" (always determined after the abuse by the way) to defend themselves with equal or greater force to stop the abuse at the hands of a bad cop...not one. I only hear, repeatedly, "submit" to the officers orders and let a civil action make the abused citizen whole.

No amount of money from the state will bring back the dead or repair the permanent injury. QI makes better cops and better cops don't need QI.
+1

Ignores old court precedent and the rights protected by the constitution and English common law.

Justice Sanders dissent in Spokane vs Valentine is a great read.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
There was no overt threat, unless you consider open carry a overt threat. Do you?
This is a fine example of a loaded question and begging the question.

The entire crux of the discussion of the Black Panther Cali Legislative incident here has been about whether they were merely OCing, or whether they were doing something more akin to brandishing.

Of course I support OC and do not consider OC to be an overt threat.

I do consider brandishing to be an overt threat.

Do you support brandishing in the absence of an imminent and credible threat of grave injury to life or limb?

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,898
Location
North Carolina
This is a fine example of a loaded question and begging the question.

The entire crux of the discussion of the Black Panther Cali Legislative incident here has been about whether they were merely OCing, or whether they were doing something more akin to brandishing.

Of course I support OC and do not consider OC to be an overt threat.

I do consider brandishing to be an overt threat.

Do you support brandishing in the absence of an imminent and credible threat of grave injury to life or limb?

Charles
Are you claiming that when the state carries in the same fashion it is brandishing?

They were carrying hunting shotguns, they usually do not have slings, and even our cruiser shotguns at that time did not have slings. It is the same fashion that the police in Ferguson carried to monitor the protestors. Are you claiming they were brandishing to be an overt threat? If not are you claiming it is OK for white police to brandish to intimidate protestors yet not OK for black people to lawfully carry shotguns in a safe manner?

Hmmm look at the soldiers brandishing!



More black soldiers brandishing! The horror!

 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I think we have done well over the years. Recognizing and discussing the actual implications and meaning of the 2A is not the same as advocating for armed rebellion or criminal actions. It may cause the overly jingoistic chaotic spasms that how dare anyone discuss the right to overthrow or resist the government. The same way a discussion of the right to resist arrest even to taking a life of the officer, isn't actually advocating killing officers. My hope is that education and an awareness of these rights along with other rights and the not throwing anyone under the bus and demonizing those who attempt to exercise these fundamental rights would lead to a peaceful restriction of the state back to their proper place.
"Overly jingoistic chaotic spasms" eh? Cute. I suppose the other side of that coin is the anxiously rebellious, traitors, and provocateurs.

But let's avoid potential insults and go ahead and talk about rebellion and resisting the government, shall we? Not to encourage it of course, but to discuss it.

First of all, there can be no doubt that the 2nd Article of Amendment to the US Constitution is the teeth in the inherent power of the people to protect their rights with force if needed. Our nation is founded on the self-evident truth, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ... --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Of course, in the same breath, we also believe that, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Having stated the principle, let's look at the reality shall we? How has rebellion worked out?

The 1776 rebellion lead to 8 years of horrific struggles, bloodshed, and privations. In 1883, our founding fathers managed to win the war and begin living under their new government formed during the Revolution, The Articles of Confederation. But only 6 years later, the Articles gave way to the federal Constitution. Methinks that many who like to discuss the "theory" of armed resistance consider the adoption of the federal constitution to be a major infringement of individual rights.

The French Revolution was a major failure beyond any need to even discuss.

The War Between the States that started in South Carolina was certainly a great try. And the revolutionaries did far better than any student of war would have predicted given the massive advantage held by northern States in terms of population, manufacturing, miles of railway lines, etc. But, Lincoln couldn't buy himself a decent general and so the Confederacy held on bravely for 4 years, resisting Northern tyranny of unjust tariffs, hoping that King Cotton would bring Great Britain or other European allies into the war on their side. But, Lincoln and the abolitionists managed to make the War about slavery and in the end, the Southern States were decimated, their infrastructure left in ruin, their economy in shambles, and the entire premise of States being able to withdraw from the Union as freely as they had joined utterly destroyed. It was 80 years (post WWII) before the South really recovered from the War. Even then, sadly, the overt racism of Jim Crow (perhaps, arguably the effects of Reconstruction), lead to another, mini-rebellion of sorts:

The Civil Rights movement resulted in complete elimination of all regard of federalism or "States rights". Alabama Governor George Wallace calling out the National Guard and literally standing in the doorway of the school house to prevent racial integration resulted in the President sending in the 101st Airborne to enforce Supreme Court rulings to end racially segregated schools. To this day, some 50 years later, any mention of "States rights" or a notion that the States might protect their people from federal over-reach is countered very successfully by those who point to the racist use of such powers by the members of the former Confederacy. Failed rebellions cost future generations as well as the unfortunate souls who wage them.

Texas managed to win independence from Mexico, but then pretty quickly threw in with the United States, then the Confederacy, then with the USA again.

The Czar was a tyrant and certainly the Russian people were justified in armed rebellion. Nobody but Sudden Valley Gunner needs to be reminded of how that worked out, but let's just call it 100 million innocent civilians murdered worldwide since the Russians made the horrible mistake of trading an uncaring Czar for the godless communists. Most revolutions since that time seem to be poor people demanding more goodies at the expense of the rich, oftentimes with communists or radical muslims deftly guiding useful idiots to jump from the frying pan into the fire.

The '67 incident in the Cali Legislature with the Black Panthers has resulted in nearly 50 years of horrible gun laws in a State once known for having pretty decent regard for the individual RKBA. The recent incident in Washington is portending similar problems for gun owners.

Admittedly, the Bundy Ranch incident last year may be small success for armed resistance. But time will tell whether that victory is fleeting or lasting. The '46 "Battle of Athens" in Tennessee worked out ok.

But in general? Armed rebellion doesn't often fair well. It is almost as if the cause must be very just and those engaged in it must be able to control the message such that their cause remains just in the minds of the larger population. And then they must be very careful to avoid falling under worse government than what they have left.






Simply put, it starts to look like the theory of citizen armed rebellion has a bit in common with the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): both act as a deterrent to the other side behaving too badly, but both promise such horrible outcomes that no sane, thinking person would actually pull the trigger preemptively. In other words, armed rebellion is not something to even consider until such time as political activism is indisputably no longer available.

So sure, let's discuss the real intent of the 2nd amendment. But let's do so honestly and with some real thought to how it most often works out, rather than as a cheap cover to avoid violation of rules.

Charles
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Are you claiming that when the state carries in the same fashion it is brandishing?
In the first place, long guns slung or carried over the shoulder might reasonably be less likely to be viewed as brandishing than carrying in two hands in the "ready position."

Secondly, brandishing is a threat of force and may be prudent when used against an imminent threat. Brandishing against a rioting crowd (whether as a peace officer or as a private citizen defending yourself and your business/home, or family) is quite different than brandishing against someone who is not presenting a credible threat of imminent violence against you.

Are you comparing the '67 Cali legislature or the current Washington legislature to rioting street mobs?

More black soldiers brandishing! The horror!
Are you attempting to inject racism into a discussion that is not about racism? Is this an attempt to poison the well?

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I have yet to find a single top cop advocate that a citizen being physically abused by a "bad cop" (always determined after the abuse by the way) to defend themselves with equal or greater force to stop the abuse at the hands of a bad cop...not one. I only hear, repeatedly, "submit" to the officers orders and let a civil action make the abused citizen whole.
I've never read anyone here advocate for submission in the face of such violence at the hands of police officers. Most of us have declined to discuss it in any detail even while acknowledging there is a line, which if crossed, would warrant force.

I will just suggest that a bad cop engaged in illegal violence probably presents a very different kind of threat than does the average two-bit criminal looking to steal a wallet, bash a homosexual, or commit rape. The latter might be expected to be deterred with any serious show of force, while the bad cop might well be expected to double down, call for backup, or otherwise escalate. Plan and act accordingly if it comes to that.

Now, that said, even in the last couple of years with record high levels of police killing suspects, there are fewer than 400 a year nationwide; fewer than there are self-defense killings by private citizens. If you are one of those 400 and happened to be killed unjustly, that really sucks. But in a nation with 300 million persons, we are not talking about an epidemic by any stretch and as we've seen in other threads, even when confronted by relatively bad and over-zealous cops, the private citizen can generally avoid bodily harm.

But so there is no mistake, I fully support the right of using force, including deadly force, against all illegal violence including that committed by police officers or other agents of the state.

No amount of money from the state will bring back the dead or repair the permanent injury. QI makes better cops and better cops don't need QI.
Likewise, no amount of punishment for the bad cop will bring back the dead or repair the permanent damage. Your hammer is making every problem look like a QI nail.

Do you have evidence of good cops using excessive force because they know they are covered? QI didn't preserve the job of officer Wilson in Ferguson. Even the feds under Holder can't find cause to bring charges. But he felt compelled to resign and probably move away for his own and his family's safety. I the words of an on-line columnist who is quick to condemn government excesses:

Fred Reed said:
Every white cop short of the orbit of Neptune knows that if he shoots a black, he faces dismemberment in the media, loss of job and pension, probable criminal charges locally by a publicity-seeking prosecutor, a well-funded civil suit that he can’t afford filed by surviving family members, and trumped-up federal civil-rights charges from an attorney general who doesn’t like whites.

All this because he wants to shoot a black kid for jaywalking?
I also offer the following about the much maligned LAPD following the Rodney King incidents from an excellent article about "Power Curve" problems. I highly recommend the entire article (15 minute read) as it is powerful to change how one looks at a host of social issues.

Million Dollar Murray said:
Fifteen years ago, after the Rodney King beating, the Los Angeles Police Department was in crisis. It was accused of racial insensitivity and ill discipline and violence, and the assumption was that those problems had spread broadly throughout the rank and file. In the language of statisticians, it was thought that L.A.P.D.’s troubles had a “normal” distribution—that if you graphed them the result would look like a bell curve, with a small number of officers at one end of the curve, a small number at the other end, and the bulk of the problem situated in the middle. The bell-curve assumption has become so much a part of our mental architecture that we tend to use it to organize experience automatically.

But when the L.A.P.D. was investigated by a special commission headed by Warren Christopher, a very different picture emerged. Between 1986 and 1990, allegations of excessive force or improper tactics were made against eighteen hundred of the eighty-five hundred officers in the L.A.P.D. The broad middle had scarcely been accused of anything. Furthermore, more than fourteen hundred officers had only one or two allegations made against them—... A hundred and eighty-three officers, however, had four or more complaints against them, forty-four officers had six or more complaints, sixteen had eight or more, and one had sixteen complaints. If you were to graph the troubles of the L.A.P.D., it wouldn’t look like a bell curve. It would look more like a hockey stick. It would follow what statisticians call a “power law” distribution—where all the activity is not in the middle but at one extreme.

The Christopher Commission’s report repeatedly comes back to what it describes as the extreme concentration of problematic officers. [A small number of officers were responsible for most complaints while most officers had few or no complaints]...

The report gives the strong impression that if you fired those forty-four [really bad] cops the L.A.P.D. would suddenly become a pretty well-functioning police department. But the report also suggests that the problem is tougher than it seems, because those forty-four bad cops were so bad that the institutional mechanisms in place to get rid of bad apples clearly weren’t working. If you made the mistake of assuming that the department’s troubles fell into a normal distribution, you’d propose solutions that would raise the performance of the middle—like better training or better hiring—when the middle didn’t need help. For those hard-core few who did need help, meanwhile, the medicine that helped the middle wouldn’t be nearly strong enough.
Removing QI is likely to hurt the good officers and do little to fix the conduct of the bad officers. Do not assume the abuse of civil rights from police is a bell curve distribution among cops when what little evidence we have instead suggests a power curve problem.

Charles
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,898
Location
North Carolina
In the first place, long guns slung or carried over the shoulder might reasonably be less likely to be viewed as brandishing than carrying in two hands in the "ready position."

Secondly, brandishing is a threat of force and may be prudent when used against an imminent threat. Brandishing against a rioting crowd (whether as a peace officer or as a private citizen defending yourself and your business/home, or family) is quite different than brandishing against someone who is not presenting a credible threat of imminent violence against you.

Are you comparing the '67 Cali legislature or the current Washington legislature to rioting street mobs?



Are you attempting to inject racism into a discussion that is not about racism? Is this an attempt to poison the well?

Charles
Again you failed to answer a direct question, probably because the answer would go against your agenda.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Again you failed to answer a direct question, probably because the answer would go against your agenda.
Loaded questions don't get direct answers as demonstrated by your almost assured refusal to answer my direct question:

"Are you attempting to inject racism into a discussion that is not about racism? Is this an attempt to poison the well?"

Is that because your answer would go against your agenda?


Stop trying to make a fight where these is none.

We both support OC. I go further and support CC while you don't believe the 2nd amendment protects CC. Do you want me to make an issue of that minor area of disagreement? Then give me the same consideration when it comes to some minor disagreement between we two on where the line is between peaceful carrying and brandishing.


The question is under what conditions OC stops being OC and moves into brandishing and then under what conditions brandishing is justified.

I believe cops and shopkeepers facing rioters and looters are justified in brandishing.

I believe citizens on the streets, facing illegal violence--including from cops--are justified in brandishing or even more.

I believe citizens unhappy with legislative votes are not justified in brandishing in the legislature.

I believe what the Black Panthers did in '67 with long guns, what the New Black Panthers did recently outside polling places with billy clubs, and what the jack hats in Washington did recently in the legislative gallery are all much more akin to brandishing or otherwise attempting to use threats of force to intimidate than anything akin to legit OC.

Even if what happened in '67 in Cali and recently in Washington are not brandishing, both are politically imprudent as evidenced by the outcomes. If one hasn't the actual force and will to back up the threat, then making the threat (however justified) is politically stupid.


If you disagree on any particulars and would like to engage in a rational, detailed discussion of any of the above, I'm happy to do so civilly.

But I'm not going to engage in an exchange of bumper stickers or clever photos intended to poison the well, beg the question, or ask loaded questions.

If you're not up for a detailed discussion that involves more than 4 lines of text per post, then we'll can either agree to disagree, or we can see how long we can go before grapeshot shuts us down for mutual sniping.

Your choice, brother.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Again you failed to answer a direct question, probably because the answer would go against your agenda.
And as long as you are keen on answering direct questions, I'll refer you to my post 111:

"Do you support brandishing in the absence of an imminent and credible threat of grave injury to life or limb?"

I will also again ask you for a citation that you've never bothered to provide. My post, #98 I asked you to provide a citation to back up your claim that I had EVER:

walkingwolf said:
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.
One direct answer, and at least one quote or citation to my ever making such a claim, if you please.

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,933
Location
White Oak Plantation
I've never read anyone here advocate for submission in the face of such violence at the hands of police officers. Most of us have declined to discuss it in any detail even while acknowledging there is a line, which if crossed, would warrant force.
I did not address what we here on OCDO advocate or do not advocate, I specifically addressed what cops recommend.

I will just suggest that a bad cop engaged in illegal violence probably presents a very different kind of threat than does the average two-bit criminal looking to steal a wallet, bash a homosexual, or commit rape. The latter might be expected to be deterred with any serious show of force, while the bad cop might well be expected to double down, call for backup, or otherwise escalate. Plan and act accordingly if it comes to that.
Please do not inject criminals. Apple to orange.

Now, that said, even in the last couple of years with record high levels of police killing suspects, there are fewer than 400 a year nationwide; ....
What has this to do with defending yourself from a cop giving you a beatdown that you do not feel that you deserve?

But so there is no mistake, I fully support the right of using force, including deadly force, against all illegal violence including that committed by police officers or other agents of the state.
Defending yourself against a cop giving you a beatdown will never be view by any reasonable citizen as being justified until after the fact, well after the fact. This notion that a bunch of responding cops are going to do a quick on scene investigation and conclude that the badly injured or dead cop deserved what he received, the citizen being justified, is pure fantastical thinking.

Likewise, no amount of punishment for the bad cop will bring back the dead or repair the permanent damage. Your hammer is making every problem look like a QI nail.
What a criminal trial, where a cop must make his case in front of a jury will accomplish is putting on notice that every cop's misunderstandings, mistakes, warrant typos, CI "tip" could result in they, the cops, being run through the legal wringer...yes, eliminating QI will make better cops who make fewer mistakes, or charge bullhead down a path without forethought.

I understand, you are in favor of QI, even if in limited situations. I am not, ever under any circumstance. Pithy bumper sticker slogans do not address the very real harm that QI has wrought on our liberties.

Do you have evidence of good cops using excessive force because they know they are covered? QI didn't preserve the job of officer Wilson in Ferguson. Even the feds under Holder can't find cause to bring charges. But he felt compelled to resign and probably move away for his own and his family's safety. I the words of an on-line columnist who is quick to condemn government excesses:
No cop, who has a room temperature or higher IQ is going to claim they did X because they know that they have QI. Please do not muddy our discussion with such nonsense. It is the results of cop acts that are excused because QI exists. If a cop follows the law then QI is not needed. QI excuses cop behavior when they screw up only.

I also offer the following about the much maligned LAPD following the Rodney King incidents from an excellent article about "Power Curve" problems. I highly recommend the entire article (15 minute read) as it is powerful to change how one looks at a host of social issues.
At this point I think you are addressing the audience vs. my points. No big deal.

Removing QI is likely to hurt the good officers and do little to fix the conduct of the bad officers. Do not assume the abuse of civil rights from police is a bell curve distribution among cops when what little evidence we have instead suggests a power curve problem.
I do not view unacceptable cop behavior as a civil rights issue, it must be a criminal matter, first and foremost. Unacceptable (unlawful?) cop behavior must be subjected, in every circumstance, to the same scrutiny and process that any citizen involved in a similar situation is subjected to. We screw up, in good faith, we are not so protected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top