The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons - HISTORY
That's right. Saint Ronny Ray Gun took away the right to carry weapons openly in California.
"In less than a decade, the NRA would go from backing gun control regulations to inhibit groups they felt threatened by to refusing to support any gun control legislation at all."
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Back in the 1960s, even the NRA supported gun control to disarm the group. Author: Thad Morgan
Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
With each passing day, the debate for or against gun control rages on within the United States. And although the National Rifle Association (NRA) currently leads the charge for the rights of citizens to carry guns of all types with little to no interference from the government, the original gun rights advocates to take that stance were the Black Panthers.
Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California's gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, "The time has come for black people to arm themselves."
The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.
"The law was part of a wave of laws that were passed in the late 1960s regulating guns, especially to target African-Americans," says Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms. "Including the Gun Control Act of 1968, which adopted new laws prohibiting certain people from owning guns, providing for beefed up licensing and inspections of gun dealers and restricting the importation of cheap Saturday night specials [pocket pistols] that were popular in some urban communities."
In contrast to the NRA's rigid opposition to gun control in today's America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.
Armed members of the Black Panther Party standing in the corridor of the Capitol in Sacramento protesting a bill that restricted the carrying of arms in public, 1967. (Credit: Walt Zeboski/AP Photo)
The Black Panthers were "innovators" in the way they viewed the Second Amendment at the time, says Winkler. Rather than focus on the idea of self-defense in the home, the Black Panthers brazenly took their weapons to the streets, where they felt the public—particularly African-Americans—needed protection from a corrupt government.
"These ideas eventually infiltrated into the NRA to shape the modern gun debate," explains Winker. As gun control laws swept the nation, the organization adopted a similar stance to that of the activist group they once fought to regulate, with support for open-carry laws and concealed weapon laws high on their agenda.
Few aspects of the United States Constitution have been as murky and divisive as the Second Amendment. The amendment states that "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
While some view the amendment to mean that American citizens have inalienable right to guns, focusing on the right to bear arms, others take it to mean that only a well-regulated militia would have that undeniable right, with the emphasis on "well-regulated" and "militia." The Black Panthers would find themselves in the middle ground of both interpretations.
Originally called the Black Panthers for Self-Defense, the radical African-American group was formed in 1966 in Oakland, California, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, based on the ideology of the late Malcolm X. They believed that the fight for racial equality would not be won by a slow drip of nonviolent actions and protests, as Martin Luther King, Jr. preached, but that stronger actions were required to ensure black peoples' survival.
A large part of the group's campaign against racial injustice relied on gun ownership and training. Newton and Seale began collecting a variety of guns during the early years of the Black Panthers, including machine guns, rifles and handguns. New recruits were required to learn how to wield, clean and shoot guns, in addition to understanding their right to carry firearms and how to communicate that to police in California.
Newton put his own knowledge of the law to the test after he and Seale were stopped by Oakland police officers in early 1967 in a vehicle filled with weapons. When questioned about the guns Newton simply replied that the only thing he was obliged to do was give his "identification, name and address."
At the request of the officer, Newton stepped out of the car, rifle still in tow, and refused to explain why he and the other Black Panthers were carrying their weapons. As onlookers gathered, the police tried to disperse the crowd while Newton welcomed them. He knew that under California law, bystanders could legally view an arrest as long as they didn't intrude. Since there were no violations for the police to charge the Black Panther members with (and a growing pack of witnesses), they were able to leave the scene without any trouble from law enforcement.
Emboldened by their calm exchange with the police, members of the group began to follow police cars and dispense legal advice to African-Americans who were stopped by the police while legally carrying their weapons. The group referred to these activities as "police patrols."
"Bobby Seale and Huey Newton used the Second Amendment to justify carrying guns in public to police the police," says Winkler. "The Panthers would stand to the sidelines with their guns, shouting out directions to the person. That they had the right to remain silent, that they were watching and that if anything bad happened that the Black Panthers would be there to protect them."
They also organized a march to the Capitol to draw attention to their cause of fighting against a government that sought to infringe on their right to bear arms. On May 2, 1967, 30 fully-armed Black Panthers occupied the California state Capitol. The demonstration was motivated by Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford's bill to repeal the law allowing Californians to openly carry weapons, a direct response to the Black Panthers' "police patrols."
Before entering the building, Bobby Seale read a written statement on the Capitol steps in front of Governor Ronald Reagan: "The American people in general and the black people in particular," Seale declared, must "take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless."
The group of activists occupying the Capitol with fully loaded weapons on full display was an unforgettable sight. However, their demonstration backfired and the bill passed both the state Assembly and Senate, with the full support of the NRA. In addition to repealing open carry gun laws in California, Mulford made it illegal to take firearms into the Capitol. On July 28 it was signed into law by Governor Reagan, who later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."
Mulford had effectively played on white America's fear of African-Americans during the 1960s, stripping away the power the Black Panthers found in brandishing their guns. While the bill was effective in disarming the Black Panthers, it didn't have much effect in reducing criminal violence, Winkler notes.
Although it may seem contrary to the ideologies of the NRA in the 21st century, this wasn't the first time that the NRA—which was originally founded in 1871 with the intention of training Civil War veterans on marksmanship—had supported gun control legislation.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the NRA supported restrictions on who could carry guns on the streets in order to decrease hostility towards European immigrants—who were known to openly carry weapons at the time—within the country. And after the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, the NRA backed the Gun Control Act that passed the same year, which put substantial restrictions on the purchase of guns based on mental illness, drug addiction and age, among other factors.
Ironically, it was the gun control laws that were put into effect against African-Americans and the Black Panthers that led "rural white conservatives" across the country to fear any restriction of their own guns, Winkler says. In less than a decade, the NRA would go from backing gun control regulations to inhibit groups they felt threatened by to refusing to support any gun control legislation at all.
Tags
Who is online
542 visitors
So which scares you more, this photograph:
or the one above.
Seems to me the conservatives love to bitch about 'their' rights are being disrespected. The don't seem to care so much about non-whites or non-conservative rights.
I lived in CA at this time. There were numerous protests from the Black Panthers to AIM to the UFW. It must have scared the shit out of ''establishment''. Good.
Having grown up during the 60's and early 70's, I'm not much of an establishment man myself.
if ya gotta go back 60 yrs to make a point about today? ya have no point.
Really? Is that why your fellow travelers bring up the Founders so often?
That will probably go right over some people's heads.
the founding of our country has absolutely nothing to do with idiots in the 60/s
but if you wish to talk about our founding? lets do it
"Before the Civil War, states, mostly in the South, enacted “Slave Codes,” prohibiting blacks from owning guns. Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor, said during slavery, blacks were prohibited from owning guns because whites feared they would rise up and abolish slavery through a civil war.
In 1865, after the Civil War ended, states renamed the “Slave Codes” “Black Codes” with the same purpose of prohibiting African Americans from owning guns.
Preventing gun ownership among blacks began at the beginning the nation’s history. Virginia was founded in 1624 but by 1640, blacks were prohibited from owning guns.
Virginia enacted a statute that led to a total gun ban for free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians. In 1712, the statute was revised, calling for a total gun ban for Negroes to prevent insurrections, according to “Laws Designed to Disarm Slaves Freedmen, and African Americans,” a research paper.
In 1792, blacks were excluded from joining the militia, which was created under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The militia was limited to able-bodied white men between 18 and 45.
Other states enacted similar laws. In Florida, homes of slaves and free blacks were searched for guns. If a gun was found, it was confiscated.
In 1828, Florida said free blacks could carry guns if they had court permission. It wasn’t until the Civil War that black men who fought for the Union Army were free to carrying guns.
Prohibitions against blacks owning guns continues to crop up.
In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act. Robert Sherrill, a supporter, said the legislation was passed not to control guns but to control blacks."
I don't think anyone here is foolish enough to believe, if it had been a group of armed black men showing up at the capital wearing camouflage and carrying assault rifles, that the results would have been the same as what we saw a week ago with the armed group of whites.
America has a long history of hate, fear, bigotry, discrimination and assumed guilt of black Americans that has existed since the first slaves were brought over from Africa. Let's not pretend as if the south has changed that much since their forefathers attacked America just so they could continue owning humans like cattle. Many externally project what they call "southern charm", but that's just a slimy veneer hiding their long seething tradition of bigotry and fear.
I think the white supremacist logic works like this: "Well, we used to own black humans and treated them not much better than farm animals, denied them education, denied them any human rights or self respect, then fought a war to keep owning them like cattle, then even after losing and being forced to free them from slavery, we chose to shower them with discrimination, hate and abuse for the next century, so if we gave them weapons, would they not rise up? Would they not choose to fight back if they had the means? If that were whites being subjected to such abuse, they would rise up, right? So that means, for our own white races survival, we have to keep blacks poor and unarmed!".
Racism is alive and well today. Hate, discrimination, bigotry, all saw a resurgence over the last decade most specifically in response to millions of worthless bigots seeing a black man rise to the level of President which put the fear of God in them. Never before had such a threat to their imagined "white nation" been so real to them, which is why we heard them fearing black hawk helicopters coming to take their guns away and round them up in some fantasy FEMA camps. In response to such fears we saw a huge increase in right wing, white nationalist militia groups.
" The US is facing a surge in anti-government extremist groups and armed militias, driven by deepening hostility on the right to Barack Obama, anger over the economy, and the increasing propagation of conspiracy theories by parts of the mass media such as Fox News" " extremist "patriot" groups "came roaring back to life" last year as their number jumped nearly 250% to more than 500 with deepening ties to conservative mainstream politics."
You just proved that Ender was right.
LMAO. Not sure how your reply is germane to my reply to Kavika, but let's see if I can roll with it.
I don't have to go back 60 years to make a point (though the issues of the 60's are still with us today), I don't even have to go back 60 days. Here's the point, and whether it pertains to you individually I do not know, but when a bunch of blacks decided to exercise their constitutional right to carry guns into the statehouse, it caused a furor among Republicans. Just a couple of weeks ago, a bunch of whites do the same thing, nothing but crickets.
And while I'm here, let me say that my avatar was not chosen without thought. Too many today have forgotten their history, and therefore, have forgotten the face of their father.
Neither. Both pictures depict the same action only ~50 years apart.
Do you have a link about those white guys 2nd Amendment protest?
Both are a protest. Both are armed. You need a link to see the obvious?
So your answer is no. Got ya.
Yes, the actions are the same, the results not so much.
Here's your link:
So your answer is STILL no.
Ok. You're right. So, the remedy is to throw out those rules and install Marc Robinson as NRAs executive.
regulated
control or supervise by means of rules and regulations.
again, states regulate their militias by rules and regulations. otherwise known as gun laws
so where is the beef?.
think your state needs more regulation? talk to your state government.
want the feds to regulate all states militias? go fish.
/
want to hold people of today accountable for something that happened 60 yrs ago? too damn funny.
Just making the point that blacks with guns appear to be scary as hell to conservative, whites, not so much.
maybe true 60yrs ago.... not today.
try to keep up with the times.
today, guns only scare the hell out of some on the left.
cheers
It's called "White Privilege". It goes hand in hand with those that think shooting unarmed black people jogging is justifiable homicide.....
The fact that these two men felt empowered to do this, and that the police didn't do anything until the video came out is justifying it. Now the person who took the video is getting death threats. You think that the battle is almost over? Explain that to the dead man's family.
It sounds to me like you live in a bubble.
Living in the south, I can tell you it is no where near over.
I had one guy tell me once, when talking about children, that he didn't care who his children played with as long as they weren't 'nigglets'. Then proceeded to tell me he would severely punish his kids if they ever brought one home.
Sorry about the language but those were his words. And this was about five years ago.
Telling people what they know or think always has the ability to backfire.
The police did when they did nothing for two weeks until their hand was forced with the videotape. And why the hell did these two yahoos act as vigilantes? This poor guy goes out for a jog and is now dead because two dumb ass racists thought he looked like a suspect base purely on his color.
And by the way Muva, but I grew up in a black neighborhood. I have black friends and I worked for over 20 years in a black inner-city school, here in NY. So I know what is and is not true. I'm no average white bread from LI. In fact, I'm not even considered white by some, since I am Indian and as they call it in the black community, I am "passing" as white. On the other hand, genetics strange as they are, my daughters are not passing and look like people of color. They were told they were not white in Baltimore by whites classmates, even though they are only 1/16th Indian, so I don't know what altered reality you are living in, but it sure is not what I have experienced.
So please don't tell me what I know about and what I don't.
Maybe there is a reason for that, but not just for conservatives. Blacks make up approximately 13 percent of the population but over 50 percent of all crimes in the country.
My wife is of Asian descent and was held up at gunpoint years ago by two young black men in our driveway. She was depressed and scared for weeks after.
She told a friend when she was finally able to leave our house out of fear that when a black man is walking towards her, she gets nervous. A black co-worker heard her say that and reported her for racist remarks. When she was interviewed and explained what she meant, the complaint was dismissed.
Today she has no problem. It just took time.
Don't you love it when people who have never walked even 5 minutes in your shoes, much less a mile, tell you what your life is like, and what you know and don't know.
If you don't know what they know it's not worth knowing. /s
It would appear that whites with guns appear to be scary as hell to liberals, hence the never ending cry for "stricter gun laws"
Bad guys with guns are scary, doesn't matter what race or political party they are.
Don't know where you get that number from...
I thought you were half black. Am I mistaken?
BTFW, there are a lot of things that you could learn about race relations. One of them is that you don't know everything there is to know about it.
So I admit that the numbers I gave was off the top of my head and I should have clarified murder vice all crimes, especially when guns are discussed. However, I was not that far off. From your link...
Arrests for murder all ages
53.1
The first number is one hundred percent, the second is murder by whites, the third murder by blacks.
Arrests for murder under 18
The same order applies here
Arrests for murder over 18
36.0
Same order applies
There's a Facebook group with over 100,000 members justifying his killing. I've seen a guy on Facebook try to convince anyone who'd read his comments that Arbery, unarmed and on foot, was the one chasing the murderers, who were armed and in a truck. And yeah, everybody who should have been involved in investigating and prosecuting the case tried to justify his killing. If they hadn't, it wouldn't be nearly the story it is. The only way you could be unaware of people trying to justify his killing is if you're willfully ignoring their existence.
Yet still white people committed about 69% of all crimes.
More rape, burglary, larceny, assault, etc.
It lists weapons charges but I don't see where it specifies where a gun was used in crime.
Sure they do, but it matches the totality of population of whites in the country.
Unfortunately, you are about 4 times as likely to be murdered by an African American than a white person, even with their population numbers being so far less.
There certainly are are shitty white people out there, but far less probable to kill you.
Not really, if one takes into consideration gang murders and the like, which I think a lot of them are comprised of.
Basically mafia bullshit where they are killing each other.
That is not even close to being accurate.
In 2016 , 3,499 white people were murdered. 2,854 of those, or 82%, were murdered by other whites. 533, or 15 % were murdered by blacks.
What you could argue is that some of the "white" murderers were hispanic, and that is true, but does not impact your argument that you are 4 times more likely to be murdered by a black.
John,
You have to look at the numbers as a whole, not by murders by same race. Because there is such a large disproportion of blacks arrested of murder compared to percentage of number in the US, you are 4 times more likely to be killed by an African American, ON AVERAGE, than any other race.
Could be, but unfortunately, it does not change the numbers.
Not really because if you had been paying attention, you would have seen Ender and I have been citing the FBI site, table 43 which breaks down murders by race...including Hispanic as a separate category from whites.
True but that is raw data. It does not break down any micro data.
I think what John was trying to show is that white people are more likely to be killed by white people and vice versa.
Let's put it like this. Whites are about 70% of the population, give or take and depending how you classify hispanics, yet they commit about 80% of the murders of other whites. Blacks are 12% of the population and commit 15% of the murder of whites.
There is no way to get to the idea that a white person is 4 times more likely to be murdered by a black.
I know what you are trying to say (that blacks commit more murders than whites do ( in comparison to their percentage of the overall population), but it does not mean a white person is 4 times more likely to be murdered by a black.
Most people of any race are murdered by someone that they know.
I don't have an argument about that. What he is trying to deflect from is what you and I have been discussing.
That's because you are trying to pull the liberal tactic of arguing something I never said.
Nowhere in my posts did I say a WHITE person is 4 times more likely to be killed by a BLACK. I said that A PERSON is 4 times more likely. That means it does not matter if you are white or black, brown, green or blue, you are 4 times more likely to be killed by a black person.
Now, if you are done making up crap, you can go away.
I know this is straying a little but it also makes me wonder about socioeconomic status.
It probably does. If you were able to identify each one of those, of any race, that committed murder, there is probably a higher degree of certainty that they came from low income, probably single mother homes.
Oh I see. OK. Youre still not saying it right. It is true that blacks commit murder at a higher rate than whites. For many years, many years, blacks have committed about half of US murders. And whites , if you count hispanic as white, have committed about half. Which means no matter who you are, if you are a murder victim there is an equal chance that your killer will be black or "white". Except that we know that whites are usually killed by whites and blacks are usually killed by blacks.
Where your problem is is in assuming that because blacks commit more murders than their percentage of the population that means the victims are killed 4 times more often by blacks. Not true. For one simple reason. Blacks dont commit 4 times as many murders as non blacks. The number of murders committed by blacks and non blacks is roughly equal. So the victims will have been killed equally by blacks and non blacks (whites). It is not in the victims, but in the perps, that the large disparity exists.
Nobody ever said it was. That does not negate the fact that racism is still a problem in this country, and one need not be a member of a racial minority to see it.
It's a private group, so neither do I. The name of the group makes their intentions pretty clear, though. TBH, avoiding the knowledge of their existence does not make them go away.
I notice you only add the "on this site" stipulation after several instances of people justifying the murder have been named.
Obama calls himself black therefore he is black. A mixed race person like you should know that in the US individuals self identify as to their race (within reason). Someone with one white and one black parent doesnt have to call themselves "mixed" every time they mention their race.
Obama could also choose to call himself white but if he did that he's have a million comments coming in the next day telling him that is a n------.
My sisters kids have a black father. My sister is white. My one nephew used to play with his one white neighbor kid until that kids' dad discovered that his father was black. His dad is also an HVAC tech. It's okay for the negro to work in his home, but not okay for the negro's kid to play with his.
Some like to claim their white/black sides whenever it suits them it seems.
I just followed you. You've 'gone there' multiples times and have used the fact that you are bi-racial as a pretense of expertise, just like you did here.
How is Obama's racial profile relevant MUVA?
That's a sad statement, even from you. At 60+, I relish the fact that there is a plethora of things for me to learn.
As for the 'likes of' ME, I too am bi-racial, though unlike you, I'm not so delusional to think that MY experience is illustrative of ANYONE else's. Nor do I pretend to be able to speak for them. As a POC, I'd appreciate if YOU would refrain from pretending that YOU can speak for 'the likes' of ME.
Whether you or I can pass for white is irrelevant to this conversation.
You like to pretend to be the officiant of who has taken a sufficient part in 'the struggle' and whether that 'struggle' is over or not. I suggest that you speak for yourself, READ some fucking history and review WTF is actually going on in this country NOW.
BTFW, that isn't the first time you've posted that picture and it proves my first point.
now when it is basically over.
This fight for racial justice is ongoing, and only gotten worse because of Trump dumping gasoline on racial divides.
FURTHERMORE.... I can't do anything about the past, but I sure as hell do something about today and tomorrow! Every one of us has that responsibility!
Yet YOU don't seem to get the fact that YOUR experience isn't equal to mine. In fact OUR experience isn't equal to our parents and your children's won't be equal to yours.
None of that means that our experience is less relevant.
Stop pretending to be the 'local' expert on the 'struggle' of every fucking POC. Your failing miserably.
What don't you understand? I am a person of color. Indians are not white. Do you think that Indians are not discriminated and it is only black folk? My kids sure the heck faced bigotry in Baltimore, where they went to school.
And I think I do know what black people go through, better than most since I saw it first hand. Do you think you know what I went through? Talk about being marginalized. And btw, maybe you should look at members of my tribe, the Shinnecock. We are a mixed-race tribe since freed blacks were welcomed into the tribe. So don't be so condescending.
I had a buddy in the late 70's who was from Mississippi. He was a white guy who admitted that he was racist as hell when he was in high school.
That was until he was shipped out to Nam and thrown in a hooch with every race, color and creed.
He came home a changed man. A disabled vet who loved Motown and had black brothers from all over the country. He's the first person I knew who had a prescription for medical marijuana. He preferred the street quality and I helped him get his 'lid' once a week. The dude did the best leather work I have ever seen.
His goal was to 'convert' his high school buddies from home. He'd travel down home, have them up to 'the big city' and otherwise introduce them to his wonderful world of multiracial reality. We lost him in 82. When I see the movie 'Remember the Titans' it reminds me of him. That music was playing in his shop all the time.
From the comments, it seems that you're not sure if Native Americans are white or not.
Being an Indian (Native American) I can assure you that we are not white.
You've mentioned your father/grandfather and how they grew up in the '30s, '40s, and '50s and said that the struggle ended in the '50s.
I'm a bit younger and grew up in the '40s, '50s, and '60s. Let me assure you that the struggle didn't end in the '50s.
I grew up on a rez next to a ''sundown town''. Being black I'm sure that you're familiar with sundown towns. If you were Indian you didn't want to be in town after sunset. This is not an unusual experience for Indians in many parts of the country. In many parts of the country, the hostility toward Indians is quite prevalent. So no, the struggle isn't over by a long shot.
On my way home after being discharged from Army I was refused service in a diner in Devils Lake ND because I was Indian even though I was in full uniform. The year 1965. Actually spent 3 days in the Devils Lake jail because of it where I met someone that would become the face of the struggle for Indians. A few years later I joined AIM and continued the struggle. Alcatraz, BIA D.C. Wounded Knee, the Walleye wars of WI and MN. Yes, the struggle was and is real.
There are many more instances and experiences of many Indians but that's enough to get started.
Yup, Indians aren't white and the struggle isn't over by a long shot.
Waanikiwin.
So people that are not black cannot see what is going on? I have never pretended to be anything other than what I am. Pasty faced, blond haired, blue eyed person that could never be mistaken for what I look like. I have given an example of what I have witnessed and I could give a lot more. It seems other people have too.
Sorry but pointing out what I see and witness is no where near race baiting.
It is the truth.
Same thing from the same state in the 1980s. He knew it was wrong, "but I (he) just wasn't raised that way!"
I think he knew better, but it was more of a social tribal acceptance thing..... Still wrong as can be.
Which is exactly why we should be willing to sit down and listen to how others have experienced life. More often than not, I believe there will be some common ground found. But if not, at least we listened.
Got a link to prove your point of black crime?
My experience, and I am as white as you can get, is the opposite.
That's the deep south for ya. Most of my family comes from the deep south.
So does Obama. But some call him Kenyan. Surely, racism has nothing to do with that /s
Did Obama disown his own Father and the most important heritage of ALL in this country lately ?
Was Obama an American? Are you justifying birtherism? Are you accusing MUVA of denying his heritage by calling himself an American?
"AFRICAN AMERICAN" (Kenyan) ....if you listened to the constant "Liberal" cries
during the Obama Years.
So much for his "White' side ….. huh !
Don't forget....he's the "Second" Black President. We've already had a "First".
Still American. Some denied that, though. I'm sure it wasn't for racist reasons.
And spoke "Articulately" and was "Clean" too ( Joe Biden ).
I guess..... " African American" ….. is really the way to go !
Deflect all you like. Birtherism was all about skin color. I just think it's odd that someone of mixed race would deny or downplay the existence of racism or racist people.
Is that what they call it now that Obama is not in office anymore ?
A "Deflection" ?
The "Media" and Democrats were great at touting his "Black" side. When disagreeing....."Racist" became the Norm. Kinda Sad !
"African American" ..... it STILL IS !
No more pickin' and a Grinnin'.... OR Choosin' !
Those days are OVER !
Your sentence fragments do little to convey any real meaning, except that you're trying to defend birtherism by deflection.
Noted.
You sure do have a weird imagination.
You're the only one talking about "Birtherism".
I just noted he was "Black"only.... based on Liberal types that like to further the "Birtherism" and "Racist" deflections when confronted with that …… "FACT" of "THIER OWN MAKING" !!
I "Feel" …. for his mother (white).
?
Yes, because everybody else seems to recognize that racism is still a problem here in the US, as illustrated by birtherism, which is why I brought it up. You'd rather shuffle around it than recognize it.
Continual deflection is trolling.
And ?
What ISN'T a problem in the U.S. ?
Oh because you know what my life is like? Let me see, when was the last time you were called Pocohantas? Or Kike? I would like to know?
Same here. As a Native American I have been called worse demeaning and derogatory things than Pocahontas. I've also been called a "Spic" and "Wop" or "Dago" due to my similar Mexican and Italian coloring, and all derogatory and denigrating terms.
These terms are ego boosters that make those who spout them feel far more superior and important than others they feel are so far beneath them.
Seriously? Are you actually trying to claim that we should expand the concept of 'race' beyond black and white? The kinda half black guy insists that he knows everything that there is to know about 'the struggle' and no one can tell him anything he doesn't already know. Were do you come off trying to pretend that your experiences are unique?
BTW, /s
Yep, many of my 'classmates' in grade school called me 'Chink'. I can't count how many times I've had people come up to me speaking Spanish, which at the time, I didn't understand a word. Many thought we were Mexican or Puerto Rican. The Spanish left their mark on my peeps.
Same here. Especially, in Texas and here in SoCal with large Mexican populations. I also get mail in Spanish as some think I am Mexican merely by my last name. While I am fairly good at Spanish, I really don't like when people simply assume things about me simply based upon how I look or my name.
So I tend to reverse the game with them, by coming back with "No habla espanol" (I don't speak Spanish). "Sprechen sie deutsche?" (Do you speak German). "Capite l'italiano?" (Do you understand Italian), "Parlez-vous français?" (Do you speak French). They always shake their head "No" and look rather sheepish. I just shrug and they walk away. They don't seem to like it when others assume they know another language than their own.
I believe you have, how was it you stated, missed by a mile?
Like the Black Panthers have stopped carrying firearms./S
Funny, didn't see the NRA protesting their right to open carry.
Also, the Mulford Act doesn't mention race. Leave it to the rabid left to make race a part of it. Now, it you see whites being allowed to carry firearms around the California capital after the passage of the law, please- let us all know.
there was a fight during the ratification of our constitution
to settle the issue they agreed the bill of rights would be added to the constitution directly after ratification or the whole constitution would be considered null and void.
this was known as the great compromise and the bill of rights was born / amendments 1 -thru 10
The point I'm making is when black “militants” in the '60s and 70's exercised their constitutional right to openly carry weapons, conservatives pissed all over themselves. So it became convenient for conservatives to change the rules and sponsor more gun control so that blacks could no longer open carry. Now contrast that with today, and now that black “militants” are no longer an issue, suddenly open carry laws are no longer an issue to conservatives. So what, if anything, has changed in conservative thinking? Maybe that most “militants” are white?
From my perspective, conservatism has become intellectually closed and dishonest. There was a time when conservatives were willing to entertain ideas from outside, but no longer. For example, think "Firing Line" with William F Buckley, where an intelligent conservative could entertain the ideas of others and vigorously defended their position. But no longer. The conservative position has been reduced to simple mantras like "Freedom", "I'm a patriot" and "You're a snowflake". The constitution can't be discussed. It is what the movement says it is. In other words, conservatism has lost all intellectual discussion and contains only those that agree with each other and by doing so, has become its own echo chamber with no original thought. And I know what it is like to be a fire breathing conservative because I was one and raised by two of the finest.