• 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.

How to get blacks to open carry??

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
The 1787 founders, would surely disagree.. Everyone did not belong to their fraternity in 1787 America..

WE, the people did not mean we the people until 1920--- after the 19th amendment was ratified.

And what does this have to do with RKBA in 2017?

You keep referring to ancient history in a discussion of contemporary social matters. What is the relevance, if any?
 

Beretta92fsQueer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
51
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
And what does this have to do with RKBA in 2017?

You keep referring to ancient history in a discussion of contemporary social matters. What is the relevance, if any?

Since you brought it up: What does the Constitution in it's original form have to do with contemporary social matters? What is the relevance, if any?

Don't act as if folks on here don't appeal to ancient history on a regular basis...

Sportos, blacks, the motorheads , geeks, ******, ***ts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, ******ads all should carry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Since you brought it up: What does the Constitution in it's original form have to do with contemporary social matters? What is the relevance, if any?

Don't act as if folks on here don't appeal to ancient history on a regular basis...

Of course we appeal. And when we do, we state the relevance.

The constitution is our governing document in this nation. It defines and strictly limits the power of the government. It's provisions can only be properly understood and applied with original intent. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was that "the people" would be well enough armed to prevent government from becoming tyrannical, or to throw it off if it crossed that line. The 2nd amendment was NOT a "collective" right for the State governments to maintain militias against the federal government (and most who make such a ludicrous claim are also among the first to reject any right for a State to secede). It is not much about hunting or target shooting or other "sporting purposes". It is about the people having the means to protect their liberty from the tendency for government to encroach onto individual freedom. Lacking the written constitution with its protections, we are in the same place an England with their "unwritten constitution" that has utterly failed to protect their RKBA.

The original intent of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments was to expand those included in the body politic, or "we the people." Blacks and other racial/ethnic minorities, women, the poor, and those 18 years and older are all guaranteed the vote. Simultaneously, and honest reading and understanding of the original intent of the 2nd amendment, means that all these groups now fully enjoy RKBA as well. The people, all the people, have the right to keep and bear arms. Not just the rich, white, politically well connected people who can buy a discriminatory permit to carry. All the people.

A lot more could be (and has been) written on the topic. But notice that in two short paragraphs I provided the relevance of both the original intent of the 2nd as well as the relevance of the original intent of subsequent amendments that had the effect of expanding the body politic to include most every individual in society at least 18 years of age (excepting only a few felons and mental incompetents). It is easy to explain the relevance of these provisions and of the constitution generally.

Why CCJ continues to bring up criticism of the original constitution without providing a similar, brief explanation of the relevance of his posts is what moves him from honest observer into callow carper.


Sportos, blacks, the motorheads , geeks, qu**rs, sl*ts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, d*ckh*ads all should carry.

Agreed.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Contextomy, appeal to the authority of whoever he quotes out of context. "God said it and I believe Him, so it must be true and I must be right!" Says Country Club Liberal Joe.

Nice try Old Salad, however I never quoted God...
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Of course we appeal. And when we do, we state the relevance.

The constitution is our governing document in this nation. It defines and strictly limits the power of the government. It's provisions can only be properly understood and applied with original intent. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was that "the people" would be well enough armed to prevent government from becoming tyrannical, or to throw it off if it crossed that line. The 2nd amendment was NOT a "collective" right for the State governments to maintain militias against the federal government (and most who make such a ludicrous claim are also among the first to reject any right for a State to secede). It is not much about hunting or target shooting or other "sporting purposes". It is about the people having the means to protect their liberty from the tendency for government to encroach onto individual freedom. Lacking the written constitution with its protections, we are in the same place an England with their "unwritten constitution" that has utterly failed to protect their RKBA.

The original intent of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments was to expand those included in the body politic, or "we the people." Blacks and other racial/ethnic minorities, women, the poor, and those 18 years and older are all guaranteed the vote. Simultaneously, and honest reading and understanding of the original intent of the 2nd amendment, means that all these groups now fully enjoy RKBA as well. The people, all the people, have the right to keep and bear arms. Not just the rich, white, politically well connected people who can buy a discriminatory permit to carry. All the people.

A lot more could be (and has been) written on the topic. But notice that in two short paragraphs I provided the relevance of both the original intent of the 2nd as well as the relevance of the original intent of subsequent amendments that had the effect of expanding the body politic to include most every individual in society at least 18 years of age (excepting only a few felons and mental incompetents). It is easy to explain the relevance of these provisions and of the constitution generally.

Why CCJ continues to bring up criticism of the original constitution without providing a similar, brief explanation of the relevance of his posts is what moves him from honest observer into callow carper.




Agreed.

History is always relevant, is it not?

CCJ
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
mayberry, nc
Basicly i get lots of reasons Negroes dont open carry. One is the reason given by the OP. Check out the youtube video of "open carry: black man vs white"

Out of the many boothes i work. I do target blacks. Some tell me they have felonies, and cant carry. I Have met many blacks Carrying. They seemed like real nice people. But i believe from my conversations, that more negroes, though they dont trust the government, relies on the government. They trust the government more then they trust others

One of the best ways to convince them is to talk to them. Many of us are guilty of only association with people who look like us
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
mayberry, nc
Hey i did not use the term african American, i despise that term with a passion. It should never be used. I used the scientific term of negroe. Lets see what that does
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
We must undo what has been done

In thinking on this topic I've realized that to solve a problem, we must properly diagnose it.

I suspect there are many reasons why blacks do not OC in as large of numbers as whites. I suspect chief among these is the preponderance of blacks who live in anti-RKBA States. Most others tend to live in nominally pro-RKBA States that have unfortunate histories of racist laws or practices that denied blacks the effective ability to own and carry guns. Clayton Cramer details this issue in his excellent essay, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control."

For those who currently reside in States with this history of laws (the Old South, New York), the essay may be uncomfortable. I've yet to read of anyone providing any material refutation to the facts put forth or the conclusions drawn in it.

I expect that for many of us, gun ownership is a multi-generational matter. It is part of family history and culture. Even with the dramatic increase in gun ownership from the 1970s to today, how many here are 1st generation gun owners? How does that compare to the black community? So this is a barrier.

There is also the barrier of perception. There are groups in our nation (urbanites, for example) whose sole personal experience with guns is limited to the movies and perhaps a bad encounter with a criminal. Others enjoy personal experiences confirming that regular, decent, law abiding people own guns. Whether it is hunting, target shooting, collecting, or lawfully carrying for self defense, we have had personal, accurate, positive exposure to gun ownership that certain demographics are less likely to have enjoyed. This is another barrier.

Both of these barriers are best overcome through personal experience. Take someone shooting.

But there is another big issue. Whether justified or not, it seems a fair number of blacks believe they are at risk of violence at the hands of police. Many seem to believe that carrying a gun is tantamount to painting a target on themselves, begging to get killed by a racist cop. Whether these feelings are justified or not matters far less than the fact that they exist. Feelings are often not rational. So reason won't change them.

Jim Crow gun laws disarmed blacks not by calling out race explicitly, but by playing on these fears. By outlawing concealed carry (except perhaps by discretionary permit that could be denied at will), blacks were effectively disarmed. Little old white ladies don't often get their purses searched and so remained free to carry a self-defense derringer discretely. Respectable white gentlemen might expect certain courtesies were they to be found with a gun that wasn't fully visible. They would also be perfectly free to OC without fear of harassment.

Bottom line? If you want to get more blacks to OC, maybe start with getting more of them to CC. In the growing number of Constitutional Carry States this doesn't even require a permit. In the vast majority of States that now issue permits to carry on a non-discriminatory basis, blacks can get permits on equal footing with whites, the poor on equal footing with the rich, the average on equal footing with the well connected.

Just as non-discriminatory permits have been a stepping stone for many States to move toward true constitutional carry, concealed carry (either via permit or permit-free) might well be an individual stepping stone for individuals (black, white, women, etc) who are not ready to take the plunge into carry a gun and advertising to the whole world that they are carrying a gun.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,489
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You white conservatives need to clean up your own house first.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/11/05/new-black-panthers-march-for-stacey-abrams/

the daily caller and breitbart give armed blacks the same treatment. I'm not going to post the links, but they're carrying the same stories.

That's why black people won't open carry. Because of how they are treated when they do.
But, not white progressives?

What about these blacks? What is their political stance?
https://www.thelantern.com/2018/09/...-promotes-conversation-around-guns-on-campus/
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
768
Location
Central Ky.
You white conservatives need to clean up your own house first.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/11/05/new-black-panthers-march-for-stacey-abrams/

the daily caller and breitbart give armed blacks the same treatment. I'm not going to post the links, but they're carrying the same stories.

That's why black people won't open carry. Because of how they are treated when they do.

This is a rules violation. The discussion of long gun carry is a violation of OCDO rule #14. This website is devoted to the open carry of HANDGUNS in everyday life.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,907
Location
here nc
You white conservatives need to clean up your own house first.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/11/05/new-black-panthers-march-for-stacey-abrams/

the daily caller and breitbart give armed blacks the same treatment. I'm not going to post the links, but they're carrying the same stories.

That's why black people won't open carry. Because of how they are treated when they do.

So whom is your tirade directed? The the bloke banned? Or towards whom?

inquiring minds would like to know...

PS: might wish to see this thread...

https://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?115236-Is-Open-Carry-legal-in-Georgia
 
Last edited:

cce1302

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
270
Location
South Bend, Indiana, USA
But, not white progressives?
What about white progressives? Are they part of Limbaugh's audience? Did they attack the NBPP for open carrying? Are they cool with white people open carrying but not black people?

I don't know. What's your point?


This is a rules violation. The discussion of long gun carry is a violation of OCDO rule #14. This website is devoted to the open carry of HANDGUNS in everyday life.

No it isn't. Big font and capital letters won't change that. It's a link to what I believe is a partial answer for the thread topic question "How to get blacks to open carry??" that gives a possible reason why they would be hesitant to do so: their treatment by white conservatives who purportedly support the second amendment.

So whom is your tirade directed? The the bloke banned? Or towards whom?

inquiring minds would like to know...

PS: might wish to see this thread...

https://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?115236-Is-Open-Carry-legal-in-Georgia

I assume you used the word "tirade" tongue in cheek and not as an attempt to provoke. My post refers to the OP question, "How to get blacks to open carry??" and my answer is for white conservatives (Limbaugh, Starnes, Boortz, and their followers, etc.,) to stop treating them they way they do when they actually do open carry.

What is "The the bloke banned"? I don't follow you. referring to RBC in that other thread that you linked to?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,907
Location
here nc
Well cce1302, now that you poffered some semblance of an explanation regarding your out of the blue commentary where blatantly started without any type of seque...

“YOU white conservatives need to clean up your own house first.”

This member was asking which thread post precipitated your post. [if you look above your previous post you will notice utbagpiper is ‘banned’ which is whom i was referring to]

Little did i suspect you were posting a response to BB62’s original thread post which is over 20 months olde!

Further, nothing on this flat earth would i have presumed your post in any way is connected to media savants...

finally cce1302, for future reference, your “ar$e-u-me” regarding my usage of verbiage is grossly incorrect!
 

cce1302

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
270
Location
South Bend, Indiana, USA
Well cce1302, now that you poffered some semblance of an explanation regarding your out of the blue commentary where blatantly started without any type of seque...

“YOU white conservatives need to clean up your own house first.”

This member was asking which thread post precipitated your post. [if you look above your previous post you will notice utbagpiper is ‘banned’ which is whom i was referring to]

Little did i suspect you were posting a response to BB62’s original thread post which is over 20 months olde!

Further, nothing on this flat earth would i have presumed your post in any way is connected to media savants...

finally cce1302, for future reference, your “ar$e-u-me” regarding my usage of verbiage is grossly incorrect!

I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt, but your response proves your vocabulary and communication skills seriously lacking.

I'd be glad to continue the OP discussion if any others respond, but I'm done with you.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,489
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt, but your response proves your vocabulary and communication skills seriously lacking.

I'd be glad to continue the OP discussion if any others respond, but I'm done with you.
It seems your problem is that you make accusations without any explanation. Your attitude or approach presents a view that you have a problem with mainstream conservatives taking a stand against the far left, that being the group NBPP. But, you fail to acknowledge that conservatives also take issue with the far right, something the left refuses to do. The left embraces the far left, ANTIFA. They refuse to denounce the far left.

Before you give someone the benefit of the doubt, I suggest you look in the mirror before you throw stones.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,025
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
It seems your problem is that you make accusations without any explanation. Your attitude or approach presents a view that you have a problem with mainstream conservatives taking a stand against the far left, that being the group NBPP. But, you fail to acknowledge that conservatives also take issue with the far right, something the left refuses to do. The left embraces the far left, ANTIFA. They refuse to denounce the far left.

Before you give someone the benefit of the doubt, I suggest you look in the mirror before you throw stones.
+1
 
Top