Open Carry and Race


Every week or so, it seems that I come across a new story about a person or group of people who decide that their rights to “open carry” justify conspicuously carrying firearms in public places.

Do you know what’s scary, though? What is truly intimidating, justifying criminal investigations and voter rights laws? Scary, unarmed black men.

It is difficult for me to imagine how the typical guy who wants to exercise his rights by carrying an assault-style rifle into a fast food restaurant would react if he came across a similarly armed individual or group of African Americans. I shudder to think about what one of these brave groups of patriots might do if they came across a similarly armed group of patriots in the street who just happened to be African American or Arabic. Am I off base?


Somehow I’m not surprised at your lack of concern for voting and ensuring a secure vote. But then when you whine about Russians hacking the election I become come confused with your mixed signals.

Don’t care about illegals voting.
Don’t care about dead people voting.
Don’t care about voter intimidation.
Your outraged at anyone possibly hacking our election while ignoring our interference around the world in their governments.


Maybe. Minority poverty and racial segregation means that (1) a group of African-Americans armed with assault rifles would be rare and (2) that they would be co-occupying a fast food restaurant with a similarly armed group of whites would be almost impossible.

But while the probability is low of such a meeting, what isn’t a low probability is that just one group shoot-out will trigger the next.


@LouMan you are missing the point. People are “intimidated” by groups like the NBP who do not open carry as a part of their organized rallies. This thread also has nothing to do with how the US inappropriately meddles in elections around the world.

@Matt By all appearances they’re rare by choice – that is, it appears either that African Americans either don’t embrace the notion that they have to march around in public carrying guns in order to be “free”, or they are concerned that to do so would invite a hostile and perhaps violent public or police reaction.

I’m not sure how minority poverty or racial segregation would factor in. Firearms aren’t extraordinarily expensive, and you can “open carry” in any neighborhood where state laws permit you to do so.


How is preventing a person from voting via voter intimidation any different from adding illegals votes?
How is preventing a person from voting via voter intimidation any different from dead people voting?

Why aren’t you outraged at the NBP’s intimidation attempts at trying to subvert a vote?

Two members of the New Black Panther party, Minister King Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, stood in front of the entrance to the polling station in uniforms that have been described as military or paramilitary. Minister King Shabazz carried a billy club, and is reported to have pointed it at voters while both men shouted racial slurs,[6] including phrases such as “white devil” and “you’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

Is subverting an election via intimidation, illegal vote or hacking really so different?

p.s. Your topic is about voting and intimidation yet you want to swing this to a discussion on guns when non were involved.


I’ll just give you one example but their are many documented on the Internet. Most ‘white’ folk who advocate for the 2nd amendment… concealed carry or open carry do so with the express purpose of defending against the weakening of the 2nd amendment from what they… and I see as the actual intent of the 2nd amendment. The do not preach or advocate violence except in defense of themselves or other.

You seem to lump a group like the New Black Panthers with those who protest in defense of the Constitution. They have given themselves the reputation as an anti-white and violent organization. The guy who shoot 5 cops in Dallas identified with them. They, as an organization should be identified as a terror organization because they openly advocate violence as a means of political and social change…

So… when you talk about unarmed men in front of a polling station… you must also wonder about their reason for being their… and as we all know, if your reputation precedes you, for the regular folk… you don’t need a gun, just a look…


I’m sure glad we have a well organized and regulated militia carrying around their semi-automatics wherever I happen to be. I don’t own a gun, and I’ve never felt safe from foreign militias invading the US, ever! I do have a question, though, about the 2nd Amendment. Since when did the “right” to possess a firearm as a means of defending the country as part of a well regulated militia morph into a “right” to open carry for personal safety? Domestic crime is not the same thing as national security. When did the tide change direction, and personal safety come to rule the day? Can I carry a gun onto an airplane just in case there’s a case of assault on that plane? My safety, and the safety of others hinges on that decision. Can I pre-emptively yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater just in case there actually is a fire, to ensure everyone is safety?

On the other hand, and in much more seriousness, I never have owned a gun, and never felt the need to. My personal safety has never been threatened, nor my property threatened to the extent that I would have felt it necessary to kill someone else. The incidents of “accidental” deaths resulting from firearms are far greater than those occasions where having a gun on hand actually proved necessary to defend someone else from a criminal attack. I feel much, much safer not owning a gun. Forgive me for saying so, but I’m a real man! I don’t need a gun of any kind in order to feel safe. Pity the fool who is so paranoid that only a gun gives him the personal strength to leave his home and venture out in the real world, with only his faith in other people to be sane members of civilization.

I feel much, much less safe in the presence of a gun. Being in the presence of guns violates my rights to feel safe in public.


You can start with the Heller v District of Colombia to start. It was quite clear that an individual has the right to keep common place protection in the home and that it be in usable form… I.E. assembled and loaded.

More importantly the decision found in dissecting the actual amendment that:

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Up to the point where you call 911… and they show up 10 minutes too late…


Not everyone lives in such ideal conditions. Plus, the whole point of having an armed population is to intimidate the government. If you aren’t comfortable around guns then you can remove yourself from places where people are carrying them.


All real men through history complained that their rights were being somehow violated by something or other.


That juxtaposition was hysterical. @feddo you should really proofread before posting. :laughing:


How many strike outs do we need before colored people including myself can be called racist? 3 K’s and youre out?


My mind, as convoluted as it sometimes can be, moves much faster than my fingers… Sometime’s I read my own comments a couple of days later and have to stop and thing about what I was trying to say… It is sad too when spell check becomes an enemy…


See… the REAL problem here is that the left has co-opted the word “racism” (just like they have many other terms as well) and changed the meaning to suit their needs.

Basically, according to the left, to be a racist you just have to be white, not wallowing in the “white guilt” jaccuzzi and not bowing at the altar of the race baiters. This means that anytime you have any disagreement (regardless of whether it’s merited or not) with someone of color, or someone who’s gay, or someone who’s disabled, etc. you’re a racist, a homophobe, an insensitive mean spirited person, etc.

The biggest problem we have with racism is not so much that it exists (and there are legitimate instances where it does - I’m not denying this), but that the left has so expanded what the definition of racism is that pretty much anyone who doesn’t agree with them lock, stock and barrel is a racist.


Hm, do you think that the left is the main cause of all problems? :slight_smile: As far as I know Obama was the first black president of the US. Were there any problems (including racism), for example, in the beginning of the century when it was just impossible?


I’m not sure I understand your question, but I’ll answer it based on my presumption of what you’re asking:

Yes, I think the left is the majority of the problem. I think they have spawned an entire industry based on racism al a Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al. I think the liberal politicians have found a way that they can pander to minorities and are using racism as a wedge to marginalize white folks and create pressure for them to feel “white guilt”. I think this has been skillfully exploited by Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris (you get the idea) but I think Obama had kind of a hard time pulling it off - mainly because he was (and still is) too blatant of a racist himself to have any credibility in that arena, but also (much to his chagrin I’m sure) he was the president of the ENTIRE United States, not just those in the black or the minority communities and it was just simply bad form for a then president (and even a former president) to get caught race baiting (although that definitely hasn’t stopped him and his surrogates from keeping the narrative going with Trump in office).

I think the left has picked up the term racism as their own personal weapon. It may have worked a bit at first, but people by and large are growing weary of it. Any sane person knows that racism is no longer the systemic, ubiquitous ideology we saw in the 50s and 60s and before. We have too many black CEOs, black entreprenuers, black military leaders, etc. for this to be true.

When you talk about the beginning of the century, I assume you mean in 2000? In my opinion there were only isolated cases of racism just as there is now. What I think we have most today is self segregation of blacks and whites. The whites are tired of being called racist for every little thing they do and just want to stay away from the blacks. The blacks hold whites in disdain and claim that anyone who disagrees with a minority must be doing so because of their race. I think both of these things are a direct result of the way the left has exploited the subject of racism as I described previously.


Thank you for such detailed and interesting answer. Actually, I meant the beginning of the 20th century (I forgot what century we have now :slight_smile: ). You said that blacks hold whites in disdain… Isn’t it a result of their having worse education than white’s? I still think that it is usually a result of lack of education.


Well… there were indeed serious race issues at the beginning of the 1900s - I don’t think anyone disputes that. I think that at one time the civil rights movement had its place, but that purpose has run its course.

I’m guessing you’re not from this country. I have personally lived in many countries and I find that often people who live abroad have a somewhat distorted view of what’s really going on here in American (as, admittedly, many Americans have of what’s going on abroad).

I don’t disagree that education could be a possible factor, but we have bent over backwards to make sure that blacks and minorities get the same education opportunities as whites. This reached its pinnacle during the 60s when poor black kids were bussed to white schools in the name of “segregation”. There are still vestiges of those programs today - here in Oklahoma we have what we call “magnet” schools that are not bound to any geographical location. They actually do quite well because kids have to apply to get in and they are pretty careful about keeping a good demographic mix.

But… the reason the blacks hold the whites in disdain (please understand, this is a generalization and does not in any way represent all blacks’ attitudes towards whites) is because they have built a culture of blame and resistance to personal responsibility. Kids who grow up in ghettos are constantly told by their parents (who were told by THEIR parents) that “the man” (aka “cracka”) is out to get them. This lie is perpetuated by the race baiters such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al who are actually local if not national heroes to the blacks.

Do some research on black liberation theology (what Obama’s former pastor preaches), the New Black Panther movement and stuff like that. If you look at their beliefs they are all predicated upon the premise that the white man has exploited and oppressed them and that they are owed some sort of recompense for that. Fact is, there is so much opportunity here in America that blacks, minorities, and whites have absolutely no excuse to wallow in self pity.


And not being able to carry violates the other persons rights.

Which brings us to the rest of the story.

The left in the cities assumes that everywhere is just like where they live and everyone wants the sam things. You want a gun ban, another wants to carry a gun. Personal preference.

We as a country have put up with 8 years of what you want, isn’t it time you put up with what the rest of the country wants now??? Or is it all about you and progressives??