New Black Panther Party says to carry arms in Cleveland if legal

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: intrptr

Pssst.. You may not know this but not all black people live in hoods.

Funny, most left wingers would have you believe that.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

IF they get stupid the POLICE have a RIGHT to shoot them.

If the police get stupid do they have a right to shoot them?

Nope.

If they perceive the police to be a tyrannical arm of the government, when do they have the right to exercise that right in self-defense of tyrannical government?

Newsflash.

PERCEPTION isn't reality.

Then whose, or what, perception is the correct reality?

Yours?

a reply to: Liquesence

You really think all BLM wants is free stuff?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: neo96

Perhaps your religious belief (or lack thereof) is the next topic considered too radical to own a firearm? Even though you may never have committed a felony, and have passed all the rigorous background checks to qualify to own a firearm. By your own admission, you should be stripped of that right without due process, because someone in charge decides it's "for the best".

ETA:
Remember, "When tyranny becomes law. Rebellion becomes duty". Catchy phrase, isn't it? And it doesn't even mention skin color at all!

Isn't it interesting how steadfastly pro-2nd amendment left wingers are when they're defending white people hating racists? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Perhaps your religions belief (or lack thereof) is the next topic considered too radical to own a firearm?

Already am considered to 'radical'.

And without ANY due process.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Deflection ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's the TOPIC.

You're floundering, Neo.

Perhaps you need to rethink your understanding and actually support the 2nd amendment, or at least stop saying you do.

This is the 2nd example (ironic) in which you specifically have shown the 2nd amendment right is dependent upon certain aspects that directly contradict that right.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
I've wondered about this scenario for a while now.
Americans are ok with Joshua carrying an AR-15
at the local mall in in Boise Idaho but will that
same trust transfer to to a mall in Chicago or Houston
when carried by a minority ?

It shouldn't be a problem but it will.
Especially if we allow fictitious
Joshua to be a member of a
heritage group or militia.

You don't have to wonder:

originally posted by: TheBulk
Isn't it interesting how steadfastly pro-2nd amendment left wingers are when they're defending white people hating racists? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

They sure weren't defending the second when they were pushing no fly no buy,and terrorists (muslims)

Trying to deny them their second amendment RIGHT.

a reply to: neo96

Yeah I guess believing that "When tyranny becomes law. Rebellion becomes duty" is too radical a thought. Except for those of a different color.

a reply to: Krakatoa

We saw it in action in Dallas. Plenty were legally open carry in the crowd. Quartz has this asinine op ed about how it now debunks the pro-gun argument that the 2nd Amendment protects against mass shootings. If anything, it shows that legal owners know better than to go all OK Corral. They did what they were supposed to do and let the LEOs handle it.

Usually, gun advocates make the argument that legal owners could help in the event no LEOs are near when a mass shooing event begins.

This was not that case.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Right I forget that anyone one of us can go around shooting people because they have different politics.

WHAT was I thinking.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

The only thing that's going on here is this thread is getting TROLLED.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another deflection.

You need to do better.

a reply to: neo96

Please elaborate for me. I don't understand your train of thought on that one. (honestly)

a reply to: Krakatoa

It was pretty clear back on page 3 what I said.

They have a right to carry.

So I have no idea WHY i am getting TROLLED.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Conceal carry, open carry or if they want to sling a scary black gun over their shoulder that's fine, it's the end game I'm more concerned about. In the atmosphere that we have now things can go FUBAR fast.

a reply to: neo96

I am not "trolling" you or anyone. Merely in an interactive discussion here. Your statement that a group of people that have different political and social views should have their 2nd amendment rights stripped without due process, while conversely having a tagline about rebellion against tyranny is a duty seems very hypocritical.

Doesn't it?

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
Conceal carry, open carry or if they want to sling a scary black gun over their shoulder that's fine, it's the end game I'm more concerned about. In the atmosphere that we have now things can go FUBAR fast.

That's the real worry, and with all the different groups on all sides who are going to be there, anyone carrying is going to be a potential problem, even a cop. There's going to be way too much tension.

And of course, trying to say this argues no one should be armed is stupid. This isn't a normal situation and we all know it.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: neo96

I am not "trolling" you or anyone. Merely in an interactive discussion here. Your statement that a group of people that have different political and social views should have their 2nd amendment rights stripped without due process, while conversely having a tagline about rebellion against tyranny is a duty seems very hypocritical.

Doesn't it?

WHERE did I say that ?

QUOTE it.