It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: 2wheelvet
What triggered it? A shooting of a black guy by a white person.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Why do you consider shouting "Black Power" to be "violent" or a "show of force"? This was a NON-VIOLENT protest.
Oh, I wasn't citing the cry of black power, just the "armed parade". On "Martin Luther King" drive, in front of that church.
His call to Demonstrate would have excluded the firearms and you and me both know what would happen if those "peaceful protesters" marched into Ferguson brandishing arms.
originally posted by: phinubian
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Right but let me add a touch of reality and truth to this OP claim that is not so accurate, the Black Panthers laid the ground work and foundation for the modern gun rights movement , they were not followers, if you study history, the Black panthers were always touting their gun rights, what happened to cause a wave of laws, of course eventually endorsed and signed off on in the District of Columbia and later backed by the Great Reagan, it was ok for Klansmen to do this sort of thing for years, but in the 60's and 70's the Black Panthers were rarely seen without armed members to mostly protect themselves against the police.
The fear they instilled when marching in Washington on some occasions was enough to get the ball rolling to start imposing carry rules, laws and ownership stipulations, that is the real skinny, the OP has a good post but this is nothing new, the Black Panthers always had backup regardless, until some people started to fear what might happen, so they commenced fashioning the backbone of many of the laws that regulate or ban guns.
NRA was pro gun control until
Excerpt from the above link
" While today’s NRA takes hardline positions against even the most modest gun control measures, this was not always the case. Throughout its history, the NRA supported gun control, including restrictions on gun ownership, and was not focused on the Second Amendment.
But the organization had a change of heart in the 1970s when the Black Panthers advocated for an individual right to bear arms. Ironically, the Panthers were the founders of the modern-day gun rights movement, which became the purview of predominantly white, rural conservatives.
The ambiguous reading of the Second Amendment notwithstanding, gun control is as old as the Republic, and the amendment was not interpreted as an absolute in the early days of the United States. There was a balance between individual rights and public safety.
For example, slaves and freed blacks were barred from gun ownership, reflecting fears that African-Americans would revolt. At the same time, the founders proscribed gun ownership to many whites, including those who would not swear their loyalty to the Revolution. And contrary to legend, the “Wild, Wild West” had the most severe gun control policies in America.
Meanwhile, the Black Codes of the post-Civil War South were designed to disempower blacks and reestablish white rule.
This included the prohibition on blacks possessing firearms—a law which was enforced by white gun owners such as the Ku Klux Klan, who terrorized black communities "
originally posted by: ThePublicEnemyNo1
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Why do you consider shouting "Black Power" to be "violent" or a "show of force"? This was a NON-VIOLENT protest.
Oh, I wasn't citing the cry of black power, just the "armed parade". On "Martin Luther King" drive, in front of that church.
His call to Demonstrate would have excluded the firearms and you and me both know what would happen if those "peaceful protesters" marched into Ferguson brandishing arms.
With all due respect, I don't think they had Dr. King, in mind when they were marching
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus No doubt they have the right to any name they choose. My point is that the name brings to light race right from the time one hears it.
That in its self is a hurdle for people to overcome if they choose to look into the situation.
At the same time it gives the members a sense of black pride.
It is kinda like setting yourself up for failure or stacking the deck further against yourself.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
The reason race is a focus is because black people were (and are) TREATED unequally. This country has a history (and a present) of treating black people worse that it treats white people. That's what this is all about. The Black Panther's origin is about the police force's (apparently) legal oppression of black people.
originally posted by: 2wheelvet
The problem I have with this little march and "show of force" is the reason why they are doing it. What triggered it?
The open-carry march and rally was organized by the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, named after the man who co-founded the Black Panthers in 1966, to promote self-defense against police brutality and community policing in response to recent police shootings, particularly in South Dallas, but also across the country.
Why are they just now coming out? Racially motivated? For sure, which is exactly why I have a problem with this event.
---The woman in the passing car shouted, "Black power!" And the gun-rights advocates lined up on the sidewalk outside Forest Avenue Baptist Church on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard returned the call.---
The reason race is a focus is because black people were (and are) TREATED unequally. This country has a history (and a present) of treating black people worse that it treats white people. That's what this is all about. The Black Panther's origin is about the police force's (apparently) legal oppression of black people.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
I wonder what side of the redskins football team name debate you are on. That was the whole reason for calls to change the name because it denotes color into an activity and is viewed by some as counter productive to the point of being offensive to some.
I think they should...
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: deadeyedick
I wonder what side of the redskins football team name debate you are on. That was the whole reason for calls to change the name because it denotes color into an activity and is viewed by some as counter productive to the point of being offensive to some.
It's not because it mentions color. It's because the word "Redskins" historically was used as a derogatory name for a Native American. There's a history here that you're obviously missing. There's nothing derogatory about "black".