“While rioting by a very small percentage of protestors does a disservice to the memory of Michael Brown and the cause of saving black lives or preventing future Fergusons . . .” Yeah, right. A small percentage of the “protestors” rioted in Ferguson, setting more than 25 buildings ablaze and looting an equal number of stores. In fact, more than 100 cars idled in front of Toys R Us on the night of the non-indictment, waiting for someone to cast the first brick. Ferguson’s destruction was about rioting like surfing for pictures of Barbara Palvin is about researching Hungarian history. Anyway, huffingtonpost.com writer H. A. Goodman is headed in the right direction . . .
there are legal and more effective ways to solve our nation’s moral conundrum pertaining to racial profiling, police brutality, and issues related to the deaths of unarmed citizens.
No, I’m not advocating armed insurrection. My name isn’t Cliven Bundy. Furthermore, I’m in no position to tell anyone how to live their lives and the ideas presented here relate to the belief that if one American community is experiencing an injustice, then it’s incumbent upon all American to try and find a solution.
Yes, yes . . .
To be clear, I’m not really a gun person. I’ve written before about how we’d already be fighting another major war if school shootings were done by terrorists, and how gun rights advocates are fooling themselves by furthering the notion that armed civilians could overthrow the government. I just don’t see the Tea Party ever waging an effective battle against the United States Armed Forces. Furthermore, I believe the arguments promoting a warped interpretation that Hitler and Stalin committed their atrocities because of an unarmed citizenry makes a mockery of history.
I’m anti-gun. Got it. And . . . ?
Propaganda relies on a distortion of history that furthers a political agenda; telling people that Hitler’s rise to power was due to a lack of gun ownership is a prime example. It took the combined might of the U.S., USSR, Great Britain, and others to defeat the Nazis, so I doubt Charleston Heston’s shotgun would have prevented the Holocaust or saved the globe from WWII.
Oy vey. Right. The Jews were killed by an idea, not people with guns. Come on bro’, get on with it . . .
1. Openly carrying a gun legally (in an open carry state) is a public display indicating that an individual does NOT have a criminal record. This alone undermines the basis behind racial profiling.
Wait, what? Has H. A. ever heard of [non-permitted] Constitutional Carry? In those states anyone can carry a gun! Before you scream that I’m giving ammo to the antis, let’s face facts: anyone can carry a gun now, whether they live in an open carry state or not. They can do it . . . wait for it . . . illegally. So, while I love me some open carry, H. A.’s number one reason makes me wonder if his initials stand for the rear portion of a horse’s anatomy.
2. The epidemic of disproportionate force utilized against black men in America warrants an alternative, and legal, solution to this problem.
Epidemic? Disproportionate? Against black men? Most black men who die from “gun violence” are killed by other black men with firearms (e.g., gang bangers banging) or by their own hand. Oh, I forgot, we’re reading a professional race card player. Anyway, this isn’t so much a reason as an explanation why black Americans need a reason to open carry.
There are so many more instances of unarmed black males shot by police that there simply isn’t enough room in this article to continue. Therefore, regardless of your view of gun ownership, the predicament faced by African-Americans warrants a serious look at whether or not openly carrying a weapon will save black lives.
Let’s cut H.A. some slack here. His main point – that police are less likely to F up a man openly carrying a firearm – is valid. We, the multi-racial, multi-creed, couldn’t-give-a-damn-about-someone’s-sexual-orientation gun owners of America welcome H. A. to the fold. FINALLY.
3. The vast majority of African-American men will never commit a crime, so it’s time America realizes this fact. If openly carrying a gun will help our country overcome centuries of prejudice pertaining to skin color, then it’s an option that should be pursued . . .
(I)f carrying a weapon will serve a sign to others that a particular citizen has never been in trouble with the law, that he or she should be addressed with courtesy and respect, and that this citizen could protect himself if his Constitutional rights are violated, then why on Earth don’t we look at this option?
Oh man is he gonna be crucified by his pals on the left. Sorry to say it, but the PoTG (People of the Gun) might also take exception to his screed.
H. A.’s insistence that open carry is about signaling The Man that blacks don’t have a criminal record indicates the writer’s underlying subservience to the state. Americans are innocent until proven guilty. All police should assume this unless they have direct, justifiable suspicion of the contrary. Blacks shouldn’t have to “telegraph” that they’re law-abiding citizens to anyone, especially the police.
Equally, if H. A. thinks that racist cops will leave a black man alone simply because he’s open carrying, he’s wrong. Oh boy, is he wrong. But let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: you can be right about something (like open carry) for the wrong reason. H. A.’s on his way to enlightenment. Let’s hope where he leads, others follow.