This is part two of Asher Underwood’s interview with Rakem Balagun of the Huey Newton Gun Club in Dallas, Texas. Suffice it to say, Mr. Balagun’s perspective on “police terrorism” and media bias are more than slightly divorced from reality. While Mr. Balagun’s gun club wants black people to own guns responsibly, one wonders if his group’s “oink oink, bang bang” chant constitutes a terrorist threat. You could argue that it’s protected by the First Amendment. And all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms — until and unless they commit a crime with their guns. Your thoughts?

Recommended For You

51 Responses to Huey P. Newtown Gun Club Exposed

  1. Meh… Better than the Nation of Islam. Most of these “protestors” are cowards anyways. They just show up for an excuse to loot them a new plasma or a new pair of Nikes.

  2. >implying cops aren’t terrorists
    >implying the media isn’t full of shills who never question the government
    >implying the judicial system isn’t completely stacked in favor of the state and their goons

    The people who are divorced from reality of government criminality are the statists.

  3. I fully support their right to arm themselves against illegal oppression by the police. Isn’t that the whole “right to fight against tyranny” bit that so many people here proclaim they’ve got guns for? How hypocritical is it to proclaim their fears as delusion, and hold our own up as eminently sensible?

    • Oh B.S. The fight against tyranny that some in here envision is potential, in the future, and avoidable. Virtually nobody here actually expects open hostilities to break out any time soon Civil War II-style, let alone are they out there chanting and fomenting violence with thinly veiled threats.

      The fight that this group describes is current and unavoidable. The only problem with that is that it’s also imaginary.

      He’s discussing criminal killings of blacks by cops, suggesting that no legal consequences whatsoever befall the officers. That’s demonstrably false. We’ve seen officers prosecuted for criminal homicide before. A NYC officer was just convicted of manslaughter last month in the death of an unarmed black man. Other officers have been/are being railroaded by the penal system just to appease the black mobs.

      Comparing the views of the two groups is invalid. Concluding that the latter group is hypocritical is asinine.

      • Like it or not cops do criminally kill black and white people and get away with it year after year. Of course everyone thinks the OTHER person’s fear of the government is irrational.

        Have these people killed anyone? Nope. So STFU and leave them alone. Free country and all that.

      • I think the fight is more “Cold War” style. And I think organized militias of all types scare the government into being less oppressive.

        I also think that a small percentage of cops are violent evil men who have sought out a badge to further their twisted criminal careers. While this percentage is small, they operate with little scrutiny or challenge from the justice system , offers for years , until they are prosecuted. Some may never be prosicuted. The danger this criminal element poses is horrific. While they may feel their badge protects them from the criminal justice system, they know it does not protect them from fanatical armed resistance.

    • Except their rationalization is based on IRRATIONAL LIES on the history.

      Screaming about “the first black man hit upside the head by white slavers”

      Hot tip:

      the bulk of black slaves were SOLD BY OTHER BLACKS to ARAB MUSLIM slavers for CENTURIES before the new world slave trade started, and even then ,the white slavers BOUGHT FROM THE MUSLIMS AND OTHER BLACKS.

      And Huey Newton was a MURDERING SCUMBAG AND A STALINIST POS.

  4. “until and unless they commit a crime with their guns.”

    Where is this exception in the 2nd Amendment?

    As for their comments about cops, no worse than the things cops say about citizens every day of the week. No different than that cop in Louisiana making his YouTube videos about hunting down citizens.

      • Just make sure your revolution succeds because the victor writes the history. That is the difference between a freedom fighter and a criminal in the long term.

    • I never will forget the conversation of two officers I overheard. One was pretty sensible, but the other officers comments were way out of line. He even had a hardon for military personel. I didnt know that I was a ” worthless lieing peice of sht.” As is everyone else that our not wearing blue.
      And the things he had to say about blacks, mercy. Although most LEO’s are pretty right on dudes, it just takes a few to get a bad rap. Personally I like police officers, and some are pretty strong on the Constitution. It isnt an easy job they do, and a us against them, them against us attitude is not conducive to a good relationship. When the gun bans come, then we will know the ones that swore to uphold the Constituion from the ones that are “badge happy”.

    • “Where is this exception in the 2nd Amendment?”

      It’s right there in the 5th amendment. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Break the law, expect to lose some liberty, potentially your gun rights.

      Now, I know you’re just aching to scream: “So the government can just make up any law it wants, convict you of it, then take your 2A rights???!!! What good are constitutional restrictions on government power if the government may decide for itself when it may slip those strictures???!!!” Well.

      Nobody said the government may decide for itself. It’s still bound by the Constitution, particularly the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

      I know, I know, some people like to consider themselves 2A purists, and that works fine in the course of chit chat, just like considering oneself a bird works fine in chit chat. Go leap from a building, though, and what flies in chit chat may not fly in real life. Same thing with 2A purists.

      There are people who will shout “Shall not be infringed! Period!!” Oh. OK. Sooooo……on visiting day at the local prison, it’d be fine for inmates’ friends and families to deliver them not only well wishings, but firearms, too? Can’t infringe a convict’s liberty, can we?

      What about this lunatic chick here in Houston this week who caused a three car pile up and a three hour traffic snarl one morning, because she decided to strip naked, climb atop a big rig’s roof, and proceed to dance for all morning commuters to watch?

      Do you trust her with a gun, or would you like to see her subjected to some due process, perhaps adjudicated a mental defective and be declared a prohibited possessor? Oh, you think she should just be confined, since she’s such a danger to society? I agree! But that brings us right back to your 2A purity and visiting day at the psycho ward….

      No right is absolute in a society. Every right comes with responsibilities. Every two people’s rights will clash at some point. People in contact eventuates rights in conflict. Some kind of balance must be found. 2A absolutism implies that two riders on opposite ends of a seesaw can simultaneously sit on the ground. That may work in Internet chit chat, but not in the real world.

      • Oh hell no, I dont want that woman locked up nowheres. I wouldnt mind if she started a trend, more crayz nude chics dancing on the hoods of trucks sounds like a winner to me…..SCREACH…… BANG.

      • Aw man, I see where all the feed went this winter. You were buying up all the straw to burn strawmen in these arguments.

        “Every two people’s rights will clash at some point.”

        Only if you invent made up rights dependent on you using aggression against other people, like “right to feel safe. Right to free healthcare”.

        Two people not aggressing or threatening aggression against each other will never come into conflict.

        • People will still fight over fence posts, water access and women. But even when they do, having the outcome decided by who is the best shot, beats the heck out of having it decided by who is the best connected to a bunch of government apparatchiks.

          Realistically, though; people tend to get along just fine. And the little random skirmishes that have always served as background noise in any society, pale in comparison to the horrors against others that is rationalized away, by those who transiently happen to think some government is on “their” side.

    • Except that cop was talking about facing off with DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS AND GANG BANGERS, you ignorant treasonous POS.

  5. Oink oink bang bang, a terrorist threat? Please. That’s not even an insult, let alone potential grounds to arrest someone and strip their rights.

  6. I am good with it.
    By the way who’s perspective of police terrorism and media bias do you feel is attched to reality?

  7. I have not yet watched the video so I cannot comment on the specific words coming out of the mouths of members of the Huey P. Newton gun club.

    In the general sense this sort of thing gets pretty murky. On the one hand, most (if not all) police officers (representing one branch of government) openly and repeatedly violate our rights and the United States Constitution under threat of violent force. That makes them violent criminals, plain and simple, and should justify the victims (We the People) to use deadly force to defend our rights. However, the courts (another branch of government) don’t see it that way. The courts support pretty much everything that a legislature passes and justifies with the magic words “reasonable”, “public safety”, or “compelling government interest”. Thus, if we use deadly force to defend ourselves, the courts will say that we are violent criminals for using force against police were doing nothing more than enforcing a law which has the blessing of the courts.

    There is no good answer to this. If we say nothing, we are tacitly condoning government ‘s violation of our rights. If we challenge the laws in the courts, we lose and cannot defend our rights without threat of sanction from government. If we say that we must fight back and defend ourselves because all three branches of government have violated us, then government can accuse of making threats against government.

    • What you are saying is exactly the reason government cannot have a monopoly on force.

      The anti’s have one of our ‘claims’ wrong. I don’t believe 2A is in place so we can “fight tyranny” directly…taking on Big Bro in a direct armed conflict. I believe the free exercise of 2A means that with an armed populace, tyranny will never get to the point that it needs fighting directly.

      The threat of armed resistance to over-reach of power is supposed to be the check on government power.

      Once the government establishes monopoly of force, there is no such check on what it can do. THAT’S when true “tyranny” is born.

      Again…speaking in general terms and not specifically what may, or may not, be in this particular video.

    • The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, he is an enemy of my enemy and I will accept his antagonism toward my enemy, but I will not claim him a friend.

      Case in point: The fed determining Syria is our “friend”, therefore we will arm them to fight against ISIS, when both are sharia compliant governments.

      • OTOH, a good case can be made for claiming the feds are the enemy of decent Americans. And that, hence, their enemies are our friends. Either/both of them……

  8. I support their right to keep and bear arms. I might not like their anti cop rhetoric, but we have not seen them actively taking action against law enforcement.
    Free speech is protected, especially the speech you don’t like. I might not like the NBP, or KKK speech but I defend their right to say it.
    Now if this speech is tied to actions of others like yelling fire in a theater then there should be some consequences. It is murky and grey at best here.

      • Oh, did his micro aggression cause your little penis to wilt?

        F*CK the NBP, and for anyone, of ANY RACE who supports them , I can’t wait till they make YOUR DAUGHTER their latest trophy.

    • Well Mack, it’s nice to see you’re bigotry branches out from just Muslims and Mexicans. Way to keep consistent.

    • Outside of made up movies, pretty much the only black dude I’ve seen doing much shooting in public forums, is Colion Noir…..

      I’d take his gun control over that of The Dick Who Went To War Against The World, Cheney any day, black or not….

      More seriously, it would be interesting to see a tabulated list of outcomes of “gunfights” involving black vs white guys. Or gals. But it seems blacks mainly focus on each other as gun fighting opponents. As do whites. And Latinos. Even in those LA neighborhoods where black ganglands border Latino ones, blacks seem to focus on shooting other blacks, and the Latinos ditto. While whites blast other whites over meth deals out in the hinterlands past Exurbia.

  9. Chris Mallory
    That cop in Louisiana said he would hunt down wanted criminals
    He further said that if they fired at him, he would shoot back
    Seems like a good police work to me

    • Define “wanted criminals.” The way the Progressives seek to redefine every word in the Oxford Dictionary to fit their own political goals, that dude’s statements alone does not give me reason to think he’s a “good guy.”

      Doubt this? Check out how “terrorist” and “domestic terrorist” is being used these days. “Wanted Criminal” is even more ‘flexible’ than ‘terrorist.’

      • You’re nothing but an apologist for drug dealers, murderers, and thieves. I can’t wait to hear you getting jacked up and overdosing.

  10. I found the discussion pretty interesting, especially near the end, when Mr. Balagun places part of the blame for villainization of blacks not just on mainstream media, but on hip hop’s own “cultural suicide”. Also, I thought that his point that the media seems to promote the stories of police violence that are more ambiguous, like Michael Brown, rather than cases of clear cut officer brutality, and that this bias is not black vs. cop, but cop vs. everyone, was a good catch.
    As far as the “terroristic threat” of “oink oink bang bang”, that’s nonsense. It’s antagonizing, but in no way terrorizing.
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you are of sound mind enough to carry a gun in the country, you should. If you are black, you really should.

    • I’m white, what a surprise, but I have some experience of life. If I was black in this country today I would be armed. Discreetly armed. But armed.

    • It’s BLM and George Soros who handpick cases where the likelihood of acquittal is high. Then they make sure they pick the least articulate “spokesmen” possible, to act fools on camera. The screaming at the top of the lungs, drowning people out, it’s DESIGNED to reinforce the same “cultural suicide” stereotype that Mr. Newton refers to. He’s actually quite right.

  11. Hmmm…My deceased brother-in-law was a real life Black Panther back in day. Huey Newton my azz…all I see is “scam”.

    • I’m just saying that a lot of people are defending this man because he believes in 2A and “oink oink bang bang” isn’t a threat but you have to question the morals and ethics of someone who glorifies a person convicted of killing police officers enough to put them on a shirt and then wear it to a interview.

      • Those would be upstanding morals and ethics, as the police are the dispensers of government violence.

        • You sir or ma’am are a troll and well done at being a troll….. Or are completely insane. I’m really hoping you are a troll, because if your not may the police not be there when you need them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *