Gun rights activists are the new Black Panthers? From "The Atlantic"

[paramedic70002]

So are gun rights activists the "Lead Panthers?"

The Secret History of Guns - Magazine - The Atlantic

THE EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.

Long but very informative article article.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ArkhmAsylm]

-
Comparing the modern gun rights efforts with the Black Panthers is, IMO, a bit of a stretch. The Black Panthers were first & foremost about empowering the black citizenry. Guns were just a way for them to defend themselves against a law enforcement machine that they saw as overtly racist, but also for the shock value of people fearing a black man with a gun.

The only good comparison is that they both have roots in laws supporting our legal & human rights as Americans.

[Phillep Harding]

The Black Panthers were a street gang. Drug dealers, pimps, criminals. They carried firearms into the capital building to terrorize the law makers. "Empower"?

[ncsteveh]

I guess we now know who to truly blame for California's draconian gun control laws.

[tangoseal]

As long as man has a desire for power, to disarm his opponents will always be on the front burner. That is what I believe.

[glockman10mm]

" Sorry I ruined your Black Panther party" - Forrest Gump

hate is hate, regardless the color or the politics.

[ChrisMia]

Very interesting read, indeed, and while I think drawing an outright analogy between gun activists and the Black Panthers is a bit of a stretch, it is certainly thought provoking.

Frankly, as I read it the analogy is simply to draw readers in with a shocking, provoking hook. The real subject of the article as far as I'm concerned is the development of the NRA, and I know many won't like the fact that I'm saying this, but I can understand the argument that the NRA's efforts can sometimes be excessive - and that as one of the most powerful policitcal voices in America, that excessiveness can come across as strong-arming an issue, election, etc.

Maybe it's my legal background, or maybe just a personality trait, but I try to be rational-minded and at least mindful of both sides of any issue. As such, I don't see how ultra-strict gun control will solve so many of the problems that that side of the aisle seeks to remedy (after all, criminals by definition don't follow the law), but I also don't believe that measures such as background checks and registration are so unreasonable or burdensome as to constitute unreasonable infringements on the right to own firearms. As I see it, reasonable measures (or hoops/obstacles/barriers/etc. as some pejoratively prefer to call them) aren't so onerous as to keep law abiding citizens from purchasing and owning handguns, and at least provide somewhat of a crime-prevention benefit by keeping folks who would use a legitimately-purchased gun in furtherance of an illegitimate purpose from procuring that gun from readily-available sources. In other words, making it harder for criminals to replenish and increase the inventory of "black market criminal weapons" by keeping the legitimate channels (i.e. FFLs/fun shops) "clean" so to speak.

With most things in life there CAN be a happy medium, provided that people are truly interested in being open-minded and reaching solutions that address and resolve issues shared by everyone at the table. Unfortunately, in a climate where political futures and enormous dollar figures are at stake, the old "crabs in a barrel" mentality tends to take hold.

Okay, rant over.

[Stubborn]

Very interesting read, indeed, and while I think drawing an outright analogy between gun activists and the Black Panthers is a bit of a stretch, it is certainly thought provoking.

Frankly, as I read it the analogy is simply to draw readers in with a shocking, provoking hook. The real subject of the article as far as I'm concerned is the development of the NRA, and I know many won't like the fact that I'm saying this, but I can understand the argument that the NRA's efforts can sometimes be excessive - and that as one of the most powerful policitcal voices in America, that excessiveness can come across as strong-arming an issue, election, etc.

Maybe it's my legal background, or maybe just a personality trait, but I try to be rational-minded and at least mindful of both sides of any issue. As such, I don't see how ultra-strict gun control will solve so many of the problems that that side of the aisle seeks to remedy (after all, criminals by definition don't follow the law), but I also don't believe that measures such as background checks and registration are so unreasonable or burdensome as to constitute unreasonable infringements on the right to own firearms. As I see it, reasonable measures (or hoops/obstacles/barriers/etc. as some pejoratively prefer to call them) aren't so onerous as to keep law abiding citizens from purchasing and owning handguns, and at least provide somewhat of a crime-prevention benefit by keeping folks who would use a legitimately-purchased gun in furtherance of an illegitimate purpose from procuring that gun from readily-available sources. In other words, making it harder for criminals to replenish and increase the inventory of "black market criminal weapons" by keeping the legitimate channels (i.e. FFLs/fun shops) "clean" so to speak.

With most things in life there CAN be a happy medium, provided that people are truly interested in being open-minded and reaching solutions that address and resolve issues shared by everyone at the table. Unfortunately, in a climate where political futures and enormous dollar figures are at stake, the old "crabs in a barrel" mentality tends to take hold.

Okay, rant over.

Make no mistake, the ONLY purpose of registration is future confiscation. It prevents no crime, it saves no lives, and it deters no behavior.
There is no "happy medium" with the anti-gun crowd. Regardless of their doublespeak, they have only one agenda.
They want ALL guns, EVERY gun gone, no exceptions.

It's sad to hear that you, as a fellow gun owner have bought into their "common sense gun law" LIE.
Common sense gun law is an oxymoron. No such animal exists. No gun law is born of common sense.
God Bless the NRA, GOA, and JPFO they are the only reasons we still have our firearms today!

[ChrisMia]

Make no mistake, the ONLY purpose of registration is future confiscation. It prevents no crime, it saves no lives, and it deters no behavior.
There is no "happy medium" with the anti-gun crowd. Regardless of their doublespeak, they have only one agenda.
They want ALL guns, EVERY gun gone, no exceptions.

It's sad to hear that you, as a fellow gun owner have bought into their "common sense gun law" LIE.
Common sense gun law is an oxymoron. No such animal exists. No gun law is born of common sense.
God Bless the NRA, GOA, and JPFO they are the only reasons we still have our firearms today!

I certainly respect your opinion Stubborn, but nonetheless I do have mine. There are some people that would (and indeed do) say the same things about gun owners and the "pro-gun crowd" that you say about "anti's" in your post: there's no happy medium with them; they only have one agenda; they want all gun laws, every gun law gone, no exceptions; etc . . . you get my point. Obviously I don't agree with them - but just because I'm not firmly entrenched on one side of the issue doesn't mean I HAVE to be firmly entrenched on the other. I haven't "bought into" "their" anything - trust me, I have a mind of my own and use it often. Again, I respect your opinion, but there are always at least two sides of every issue and all I'm saying is that I can see and understand where the other side(s) is/are coming from.

Just to be clear, I don't indend to start a flame war here or anything of the sort. Simply expressing my own opinion. [insert OMO, YMMV, and any other applicable acronyms here]

[Stubborn]

I'm not trying to start a war either Counselor. I really would not like to find myself in a war of words with a Juris Doctor, I'm not sure my "public education" would fare well.
Just mostly curious about your remark concerning registration though.

You are very much correct sir, when you state that pro-gunners want all gun laws, every gun law gone. I most certainly do. To my mind that is what "shall not be infringed" was intended to mean.

It is my belief that the founding fathers knew that as long as the citizenry was armed, that they could or would be able overthrow the government if it became too corrupt or abusive. It would be a severly uphill battle, an almost impossible feat to fight a modern military with antique or archaic weapons.

You may very well write me off as just an old man rambling, one who believes the "gubment" is out to get him. Honestly though, my government hasn't given me very many reasons to trust them lately.

[mlr1m]

With most things in life there CAN be a happy medium, provided that people are truly interested in being open-minded and reaching solutions that address and resolve issues shared by everyone at the table. Unfortunately, in a climate where political futures and enormous dollar figures are at stake, the old "crabs in a barrel" mentality tends to take hold.

I have a right to bear arms. The "other side" wants to take away that right.
To reach this so called happy medium I would have to give up a portion of my rights would I not? But the other side does not have to give up anything that they actually have.
To me this is a bit like negotiating with a thief. If I agree to give him half my possessions in return for him promising not to take the other half. The thief gives up nothing and I am out half of what I used to possess.

Anyone else remember when the anti's said that they only wanted the machineguns?

Michael

[mlr1m]

Honestly though, my government hasn't given me very many reasons to trust them lately.

The fact that the government felt a need to get a court ruling saying that they are permitted to lie to me but I am not granted the same right should make anyone suspicious of them.

Michael

[HotGuns]

That "happy medium" baloney is exactly why we are in the mess we are today.

Excellence does not come from mediocrity.

[ChrisMia]

I'm not trying to start a war either Counselor. I really would not like to find myself in a war of words with a Juris Doctor, I'm not sure my "public education" would fare well.

***

You may very well write me off as just an old man rambling, one who believes the "gubment" is out to get him. Honestly though, my government hasn't given me very many reasons to trust them lately.

Stubborn, no worries, I can assure you my education is just as public (and my wife, mother, and sister are all teachers to boot) as yours - and you do just fine. And I certainly don't write you off as anything - or anyone else for that matter.

I have a right to bear arms. The "other side" wants to take away that right.
To reach this so called happy medium I would have to give up a portion of my rights would I not? But the other side does not have to give up anything that they actually have. To me this is a bit like negotiating with a thief. If I agree to give him half my possessions in return for him promising not to take the other half. The thief gives up nothing and I am out half of what I used to possess.

Michael, I agree with you for the most part - though some of your post delves into broader issues of social compact theory and the like (basically trading some autonomy as human beings for some order and oversight). At any rate, my point is simply that in my opinion, things like background checks and registration when making a purchase are certainly things that I'd rather not deal with, I can at least understand the rationale behind them (even if I don't think they're perfect or anything close to it). As such I deal with them with just a modest grumble. Of course, I do recognize that that potentially leads down a slippery slope, and that's where interest groups and the ability to speak with your vote comes into play.

That "happy medium" baloney is exactly why we are in the mess we are today.

Excellence does not come from mediocrity.

HotGuns, I'd respectfully submit that what's gotten us in the mess we are in today is quite the opposite - everyone talks about collaborating to find the ultimate solution, but entrench themselves even more deeply in their respective corners when it's time to push the chips to the middle of the table. As for the excellence/mediocrity, I certainly agree but don't see where that fits in with this particular discussion (?).

[oakchas]

Gee, if some of you had read the article, you would also note that the NRA was behind what the antis call reasonable gun laws....

If you want more history about the founders and the founder's generation, and their restriction of the 2nd Amendment, I can suggest you read A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America by Saul Cornell

I don't want any more regulations or laws. But, even the founders restricted gun rights. And the NRA was in favor of regulations, until it wasn't.