Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

A year later. State of emergency. Maybe I'm naive, biased,etc. but I just don't get it. Do these " protesters" really think they're doing something positive? Do they honestly think the "Gentle Giant" was a total innocent, sweet young man who arbitrarily shot because of a racist white cop? And if so...destruction is the answer?

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://time.com/3991452/ferguson-state-of-emergency/?xid=newsletter-brief'>http://time.com/3991452/ferguson-state-of-emergency/?xid=newsletter-brief</a>

Oh C'mon Man..... tell me you never brought a gun to a peaceful protest.    :woot:

@SheriffClarke had many wise words on the subject.

 

Unfortunately, that doesn't fit some folks agenda, so much if not all of it will fall on deaf ears.

 

"This is nothing more than a return to the scene of the big lie..."

Lets just go ahead and move this bad boy to the political section

Parking lot

Here comes the militia...http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/armed...n-33018735

Quote:Here comes the militia...http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/armed...n-33018735

 

From that article:  "The rules don't apply to everyone," she said. "If those were black men walking around with rifles, they probably wouldn't be living today."

 

 

She's probably right...  That's the sad thing...

Quote:From that article:  "The rules don't apply to everyone," she said. "If those were black men walking around with rifles, they probably wouldn't be living today."

 

 

She's probably right...  That's the sad thing...

You best check that privilege before people get triggered.

Quote:From that article:  "The rules don't apply to everyone," she said. "If those were black men walking around with rifles, they probably wouldn't be living today."

 

 

She's probably right...  That's the sad thing...

No. They walk around with pistols. Im referring to the parents of the guy shot who claimed he was unarmed and running from police. Later, a video clearly shows him popping of a few rounds towards a crowd ( maybe the cops). But again, its the fault of the cops?

There were black business owners glad to see the militia, as they were protecting their livelihood. Thats sad. Doing what the police cant?

There are people there , black and white, only there for disruption and or looting and destruction. 

Arrest them, hold them accountable and make them clean the mess, work off to pay damage they contributed to..then they can be released from jail.

This rules not applying to everyone is a two way street. Obey laws, protest peacefully, dont have nothing but excuses for your life and the rules normally apply to all.

Ferguson certainly doesnt get any sympathy from me and their issues when this way of barbarianism is their way of bringing their issues to light.

Quote:From that article:  "The rules don't apply to everyone," she said. "If those were black men walking around with rifles, they probably wouldn't be living today."

 

 

She's probably right...  That's the sad thing...

 

That's not really a fair thing to say, your comment or hers.

 

Also from the article.

Quote: 

Belmar plans to ask county prosecutor Bob McCulloch about the legality of armed patrols by the far-right anti-government activist group, which largely comprises past and present members of the military, first responders and police officers. But Missouri law allows anyone with a concealed carry permit to openly display a firearm anywhere in the state.

 

There are a couple of things in that paragraph that needs to be addressed.  Missouri law allows anyone with a concealed carry permit to openly display a firearm...  To me that says that the rules apply regardless of skin color.

 

The more disturbing and telling part of the AP story is that the group is called a "far-right anti-government activist group".  So let's see what the Oath Keepers group is all about.  Here is a copy and paste from their website.

 

Quote: 

 


About Oath Keepers
<p style="color:rgb(59,59,59);font-family:'Noto Sans', sans-serif;">Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders  who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.

<p style="color:rgb(59,59,59);font-family:'Noto Sans', sans-serif;">Oath Keepers reaches out to both current serving and veterans to remind them of their oaths, to teach them more about the Constitution they swore to defend, and to inspire them to defend it. See below for details on how we do that.

<p style="color:rgb(59,59,59);font-family:'Noto Sans', sans-serif;">Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

<p style="color:rgb(59,59,59);font-family:'Noto Sans', sans-serif;">* First responders includes fire-fighters, search and rescue, EMTs, disaster relief, and similar emergency personnel.  While not all such personnel take an oath to the Constitution, many do, and all are a critical audience for our mission.

 

Can someone explain to me how this is a "far-right anti-government activist group"?

Perception, sometimes, is reality...


It may not be fair, but I think many people can see her point.


Ever hear what happened when the black Panthers started carrying guns in California?

Quote:Perception, sometimes, is reality...


It may not be fair, but I think many people can see her point.


Ever hear what happened when the black Panthers started carrying guns in California?

 

Big difference between the Black Panthers and a group of current and former servicemen, police officers and first responders.

Quote:Big difference between the Black Panthers and a group of current and former servicemen, police officers and first responders.

It can be a matter of perspective... saying it's cool when white guys walk around with guns, but then banning then when a group of organized black guys do it can be seen as racist...


I mean, I know that back in the 60s and 70s the black Panthers were scary but did they have a history of violence? Or were the just perceived that way, because they were black and sick and tired of the system that was oppressing them?

Quote:It can be a matter of perspective... saying it's cool when white guys walk around with guns, but then banning then when a group of organized black guys do it can be seen as racist...


I mean, I know that back in the 60s and 70s the black Panthers were scary but did they have a history of violence? Or were the just perceived that way, because they were black and sick and tired of the system that was oppressing them?

 

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I would bet that there are members of Oath Keepers that are black.  I don't have any evidence to back that up, just a gut feeling.

 

If the "protesters" in Ferguson were openly carrying firearms, do you think that they would stop and allow a police officer to check their concealed carry credentials?

 

This isn't the 60's or 70's.  The Black Panthers of today are a whole different group and deserve the skepticism directed at them.  After all, they are a racist group that preach violence towards non-blacks.

Meanwhile...

Antonio French ( according to his twitter acct ) a leader in the BlackLives Matter movement...

 

 

 

Quote:It can be a matter of perspective... saying it's cool when white guys walk around with guns, but then banning then when a group of organized black guys do it can be seen as racist...


I mean, I know that back in the 60s and 70s the black Panthers were scary but did they have a history of violence? Or were the just perceived that way, because they were black and sick and tired of the system that was oppressing them?

 

1967 and 1968 bore witness to several gun fights between Panthers and the police.

Quote:1967 and 1968 bore witness to several gun fights between Panthers and the police.

Well isn't that the purpose of the second amendment? To fight back a tyrannical government? I thought the nra types would be all for that...

Well, I guess

 

Quote:From that article:  "The rules don't apply to everyone," she said. "If those were black men walking around with rifles, they probably wouldn't be living today."

 

 

She's probably right...  That's the sad thing...

 

I guess that theory goes out the window.  A group of armed Black Panthers were able to exorcise their first and second amendment rights.

Well done, jagibelieve.


Now, what if I were to tell you that a lot of people, not you, but a lot see that as a threat and that "those people" should not be doing what they are doing...


Conversely, at the Bundy ranch, a group of white people were lauded for brandishing their guns, same with the oath keepers...


This is especially clear in terms of how the media generally portrays these two similar situations.


I could be wrong, but I think a group of white folks with guns is looked at as patriotic, a group of black folks with guns are looked at as a threat...

Quote:Well done, jagibelieve.


Now, what if I were to tell you that a lot of people, not you, but a lot see that as a threat and that "those people" should not be doing what they are doing...


Conversely, at the Bundy ranch, a group of white people were lauded for brandishing their guns, same with the oath keepers...


This is especially clear in terms of how the media generally portrays these two similar situations.


I could be wrong, but I think a group of white folks with guns is looked at as patriotic, a group of black folks with guns are looked at as a threat...

 

I get what you are saying, and I can't disagree with you.  However, as you said perception...

 

A large part of your point has to do with the media itself.  There is a false narrative portrayed in both cases.  Take my above point regarding the Oath Keepers as the first example.  The media (and one of the most trusted sources the AP) labeled them as a "far-right anti-government activist group".  Then they show images of a white guy dressed in "military style" clothing carrying a "scary gun".  Immediately this gives the perception of a "bible thumping, right wing radical, NRA, Confederate Flag loving lunatic".

 

I pointed out to you that it isn't the truth, but that's what the media will portray.

 

Then take a look at the Breitbart piece that I linked regarding the Black Panthers and how the story is written.

 

From the article.

Quote: 

Many of the members of the group were armed with shotguns, hunting rifles and AR-15 style assault rifles. Most looked like they were simply holding the weapon they were carrying. One of the “soldiers” took a more aggressive grip on his weapon, holding his rifle with his finger “indexed” slightly above the trigger. This can be considered a “ready” position in a shooting situation.

 

Is that fair and responsible journalism?  Not really.  The member didn't take an "aggressive grip" at all on his weapon.  I would argue that it's more of a responsible grip that prevents an unintended discharge of the weapon.

 

Now, having said that, here is where we see a difference.  In the case of the Oath Keepers in Missouri and the people that showed up to the Bundy Ranch, they weren't chanting violent chants.  In the case of the Black Panthers, they were doing so and it was a direct threat to law enforcement.

 

The bottom line is, yes the media has something to do with perception, but so does the actions and demeanor of the group(s) involved.