Well that was a huge generalization. I personally support the 2nd Amendment and have nothing against law abiding citizens carrying guns. As long as they continue to obey the law, then all power to them.

Clickbait nonsense. This whole article is written about another article from some supposedly popular website I've never heard of. While the article claims it's one of the most visited sites in the country, a bit of research shows that it gets 96,000 unique visitors every day. Not so impressive compared to even minor conservative sites like the Daily Caller and Ricochet, which get about half a million and 23,000, respectively. Hell, if this is "one of the most read websites in the country" then cracked.com must be the new paper of record, with almost 1.5 million visitors each day.

The actual article, which your link doesn't link to, is also not criticizing the New Black Panthers for *having* guns, but rather for using guns to intimidate people by marching around presenting themselves as paramilitaries. A rather different scenario than your article presents things as.

http://mcjonline.com/domain/dailycaller.com
http://mcjonline.com/domain/conservativetribune.com
http://mcjonline.com/domain/cato.org
http://mcjonline.com/domain/cracked.com


Provide a legit source for people opposing the New Black Panthers following existing gun laws and we can talk. Almost unanimously, I expect pro-Second Amendment types to have no problems with any individual exercsing their right to keep and bear arms. The issue here, is one even exists, is concern about how the New Black Panther Party (which is a front for the Nation of Islam UFO cult, not a continuation of the original group) may be using the weapons to stir unrest. Call me crazy, but that strikes me as a legitimate concern.

Ricochet should be Cato. They get the same amount of views, roughly, but I switched to Cato because I thought it would be more recognizable.

^thanks for a sane alternative view Invictus.

One question, if the New Black Panthers are acting like a paramilitary organisation, as you claim, does that fall under the description of a 'well regulated militia'?

"does that fall under the description of a 'well regulated militia'?"

They don't need to fall under the description of a "well regulated militia" to have guns. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment right exists regardless of affiliation with a militia (widely interpreted as the National Guard).

Personally, I'm not "crapping my pants" at all. Hell, good on those guys for openly carrying because they can. I wish more gun owners would do the same. I do not openly carry because it eliminates the precious element of surprise in a robbery situation, but I will never criticize the right of others to openly carry.

When I clicked on your click-bait article, my eyes immediately dashed to the the man with the rifle on the right side of the picture. Is his finger off the trigger? Yes. Is the rifle pointed in a safe direction? Yes. No problem there as far as I'm concerned.

I may have anothe question about what is acceptable deterent used to protect your community, and where you cross that line to "intimidate people by marching around presenting themselves as paramilitaries."

I mean, i presume it wouldn't be a very effective deterant if it didn't intimidate someone. Isn't that the whole point?
(i might note i'm against any kind of carrying of fire arms in public, in almost all circumstances;)

The FBI dismantled the Black Panther Party in 1982 but the KKK is protected under the Constitution... coincidence?

About time they exercised their own rights.

The difference is between having a weapon to protect yourself and your family and having weapons as part of vigilante group. What the New Black Panther Party (or, more accurately, this handful of kooks) is doing is the later. Vigilante groups of any kind are a concern for obvious reasons. It's even more of a concern when a racist organization like the Nation of Islam is the one running things.

We gonna have a New Black Panther Party "Mason" group in the next Mafia game?

Nope.

"The FBI dismantled the Black Panther Party in 1982 but the KKK is protected under the Constitution... coincidence?"

Go fuck yourself. The Black Panther Party was involved in serious crimes. It was right of the FBI to investigate them. Were the party not to have committed crimes it would have been left alone. As for the KKK, the federal government under President Grant destroyed it in the 19th century when it was committing terrorist acts. Whenever the irrelevant Klan remnant groups commit a crime the perpetrators are punished.

And at any rate, the New Black Panther Party has nothing to do with the original group. It is merely a front for the Nation of Islam.

"I mean, i presume it wouldn't be a very effective deterant if it didn't intimidate someone. Isn't that the whole point?"

That's where it gets sticky, legally and ethically. Open carry could conceivably cross the line and become intimidation depending on the size/organization of the group in question, but that's a judgement call.

But openly carrying a gun in it of itself should not be perceived as an act of intimidation, provided that the rifleman in question has the safety on, his finger off the trigger, and the weapon pointed in a safe direction. I will never understand Americans' widespread hoplophobia. This is what happens when you take gun safety out of the school curriculum.

There are a lot of unreasonable objections to open carry and a few reasonable objections to open carry, but I'd bet my entire net worth that the crime rate within 100 yards of that NBP rifleman was zero at the time the picture was taken. That's worth something, regardless of your views on the issue.

I think there is some racial hypocrisy in this issue. An article in the atlantic a few years ago made some good points...link is below if anyone wants to read it. It credits the Black Panthers (60's version) with the creation of the modern gun-rights movement. Interesting stuff...

On a related note, I've wondered how the Cliven Bundy incident from a few years back would have played out differently if he happened to be African-American and not rural white...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

As long as they stay on the up and up, good on them. 2nd Amendment is for everyone.

"On a related note, I've wondered how the Cliven Bundy incident from a few years back would have played out differently if he happened to be African-American and not rural white..."

Or an even better question, what if he'd been Indian?

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014_04_01_archive.html

@Marquis - Thanks for sharing that.

If a black person behind a dispute on cattle grazing rights behaved the way Bundy did then I guarantee the incident would have played out exactly the same.

As for Tolstoy's link, perhaps try giving us something from a more credible source than some nobody's blog if you want to make a point. This guy's no better than any of us writing out our ramblings.

Weird. I'm guilty of what, an "Appeal to Obscurity"?

The author of the blog has been a published writer in the past for a periodical with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands. Your ignorance does not make him "some nobody".

No, you're guilty of posting a blogspot blog and expecting us to take it seriously.

I did Google the guy just now. The periodical you mention seems to be none other than the magazine for the John Birch Society. So I suppose he's not a "nobody," but his personal blog is still not anything like a credible source. Considering his background on the lunatic fringe of the American right, he's actually quite incredible.

If a black person behind a dispute on cattle grazing rights behaved the way Bundy did (militia armed with automatic weapons and pointing them at federal agents) then I guarantee the incident would have played out completely different. At the very least, Fox News and the other right-wing commentators would have been calling for his head on a spike instead of a great patriot and very likely could have been another Waco.

More likely they'd be pushing for him to run for president, like they are with Dr. Ben Carson.

"So I suppose he's not a "nobody," but his personal blog is still not anything like a credible source."

Bizarre. Apparently, if you're not world famous, you must by a liar. What exactly does a "credible source" look like, anyway? If it's number of readers, then Pravda must've been one of the most credible sources on earth in the '80s.

Thumbs up for gf, I like consistency (also his observations are right). Thumbs down (in the true Roman sense) for victus, I dislike inconsistency (and I like the occasional CATO paper). Though I don't wish it to anybody but I'll wait for the moment when an humble, law abiding black guy feels the urge to stand his ground by following some guy who can't differentiate between a vigilante group and a well-regulated militia and just a bunch of nice neighbourhood chaps who take their babies for a walk together.

Tolstoy, of course Pravda was the truth!

I'd love to talk to the gentlemen in the picture about their intentions and objectives. It's surprising how many people can sympathize with some elements of even the most radical organizations.

For example, many white supremacists are invited to speak (and are warmly received) at NBP events, and vice versa. Both groups share the same (perverse) goal of racial separation, and their relationship makes for a fascinating case study for any sociologist. George Lincoln Rockwell (a monster regarded as the 'American Hitler') once said "Any Negro wants to go back to Africa, I'll carry him piggy-back."

I digress. But if those NBP guys are out there to prevent crime and to secure the "hood" where the police are unwilling/unable to do so, then I fully approve. Hell, I'd grab my M14 and join them on a neighborhood watch shift.

"George Lincoln Rockwell" - is he White or Latino? Cause i presume he'd similarily be happy with an offer of a piggy-back to Europe or Iberia, respectively.