How to get blacks to open carry??

[Roaming East]

Dressing like a so called thug? What makes one look like a thug? That comment right there is why people of color do not feel comfortable open carrying. Not everyone who dresses like a so call thug is one. i.e my wife doctor dresses like that but deliver four out five of my children.

The clothes don't make the man, the man makes the clothes

true, but first impressions last, and if your first impression to another person is nearly identical to the guys on the 6 o'clock news nightly mugshot, expect to draw attention. 'thug wear': pants hanging underneath your butt, no proper holster, with no proper upper torso wear either too little (just a wife beater) or too much (full sleeve hoodie in 80+ weather with the hood up). in that regard you are going out of your way to present yourself in such a way to draw suspicion to your activities.
basically this:

vs
this:

both are casual as all get out. but one is gonna get you a lot more negative scrutiny.

 

[Grapeshot]

Other people see things differently

You are what other people think you are. Their perception is all that counts to them.

You might contribute to changing their thinking ......... or you might solidify it.

 

[hammer6]

true, but first impressions last, and if your first impression to another person is nearly identical to the guys on the 6 o'clock news nightly mugshot, expect to draw attention. 'thug wear': pants hanging underneath your butt, no proper holster, with no proper upper torso wear either too little (just a wife beater) or too much (full sleeve hoodie in 80+ weather with the hood up). in that regard you are going out of your way to present yourself in such a way to draw suspicion to your activities.
basically this:

vs
this:

both are casual as all get out. but one is gonna get you a lot more negative scrutiny.

racist much?

 

[BB62]

true, but first impressions last, and if your first impression to another person is nearly identical to the guys on the 6 o'clock news nightly mugshot, expect to draw attention. 'thug wear': pants hanging underneath your butt, no proper holster, with no proper upper torso wear either too little (just a wife beater) or too much (full sleeve hoodie in 80+ weather with the hood up). in that regard you are going out of your way to present yourself in such a way to draw suspicion to your activities.
basically this:

vs
this:

both are casual as all get out. but one is gonna get you a lot more negative scrutiny.

Agreed.

 

[color of law]

When I started having this problem, even with a belt, I bought a pair of suspenders. They solved the problem quite nicely.

 

[Beretta92fsQueer]

Black people should definitely be careful carrying, especially OC'ing. If I were Black--which I'm not--I would NEVER OC. Why? Because I enjoy living life.

Is it more dangerous to exercise your Second Amendment Right while Black? Not sure what the data says. Are armed Blacks shot and killed more often--proportionally--than Whites?

 

[countryclubjoe]

Black people should definitely be careful carrying, especially OC'ing. If I were Black--which I'm not--I would NEVER OC. Why? Because I enjoy living life.

Is it more dangerous to exercise your Second Amendment Right while Black? Not sure what the data says. Are armed Blacks shot and killed more often--proportionally--than Whites?

In my opinion folks of color are more stereotyped as " possible criminals".. much more than white folks... I suspect "fear' and "ignorance" is the motivator.. If I were to encounter a person of color open carrying, I would proudly introduce myself and ask if he/she mind if I walk with them..

In my 20 odd years of open carrying, in Pa, and De, I have never seen a person of color open carrying.. Go figure !

My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[Grapeshot]

We breath the same air; we bleed the same blood. We are all brothers, members of the same clan. I am happy to be so included.

 

[BB62]

Black people should definitely be careful carrying, especially OC'ing. If I were Black--which I'm not--I would NEVER OC. Why? Because I enjoy living life.

Is it more dangerous to exercise your Second Amendment Right while Black? Not sure what the data says. Are armed Blacks shot and killed more often--proportionally--than Whites?

If you were black, then bending to an overblown and in your own words apparently unsupported by data, stereotype, accomplishes nothing.

Fortunately there are people of all races who refuse to do so.

 

[wabbit]

http://www.newser.com/story/245597/...pologized-to-guy-they-mistook-as-shooter.html

nuff said

 

[deepdiver]

http://www.newser.com/story/245597/...pologized-to-guy-they-mistook-as-shooter.html

nuff said

One could argue that the first event was a "fog of war" over reaction and suppose that the lack of apology arose from atty concerns that in our litigious society an apology could be construed as an admission they did something wrong and open up the city for a lawsuit, and that neither are in any way race related. But the follow-up incident raises question about such supposition. Then again, given all the things I have read in the MSM of late in firearm related incidents that either lacked context or had false context, I'd want to know more about the 2nd incident.

Regardless, I would be pretty not-happy if I had been treated that way after surrendering my weapon to ensure I wasn't mistaken for a bad guy. So I can certainly understand why he would be angry about it regardless of any racial component.

 

[countryclubjoe]

I would argue that back on December 15, 1791,,, black folks were not considered part of We the people..

Something to ponder.

My .02
CCJ

 

[Grapeshot]

I would argue that back on December 15, 1791,,, black folks were not considered part of We the people..

Something to ponder.

My .02
CCJ

I would argue that some are just lighter skinned members of people descended from a common source.

Make no mistake - we (the people) are all brothers.

 

[utbagpiper]

I would argue that back on December 15, 1791,,, black folks were not considered part of We the people..

I would argue that is entirely irrelevant to anything in 2017 unless and until someone can provide solid rationale for why it is relevant.

 

[countryclubjoe]

I would argue that is entirely irrelevant to anything in 2017 unless and until someone can provide solid rationale for why it is relevant.

I beg to differ Sir, Any discourse concerning the 2nd amendment, whether on 18th century America or 21st Century American is in fact relevant..

You of all people being an " originalist" should see the relevance of my post.

My .02

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

I would argue that some are just lighter skinned members of people descended from a common source.

Make no mistake - we (the people) are all brothers.

We, the people back in December 1795 when the second amendment was ratified, did not include folks of color and many others as well.

Regards
CCJ

 

[utbagpiper]

You of all people being an " originalist" should see the relevance of my post.

Why don't you explain the relevance then? Just to bring me up to speed?

I hope you see some relevance other than attacking the legitimacy of the constitution or 2nd amendment or even the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms today without regard to race or color. Certainly you are not suggesting that blacks are not entitled to full constitutional protections today are you?

 

[countryclubjoe]

Why don't you explain the relevance then? Just to bring me up to speed?

I hope you see some relevance other than attacking the legitimacy of the constitution or 2nd amendment or even the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms today without regard to race or color. Certainly you are not suggesting that blacks are not entitled to full constitutional protections today are you?

Charles
Clearly you know better than that.. I defend the rights of all folks at all times.. You should have a quarter for all the pro-bono work I have performed over the years..

At the framing in 1787, people of color did not have a right to keep an bear arms..

Like I have articulated many of times here, We, the people did not mean all the people in 18th century America.
Not until 1920 when woman were permitted to vote aka the 19th amendment, did We the people, truly mean ALL THE PEOPLE..

Charles, please refrain from putting words in my mouth.. In my opinion the Constitution was a " fraud" until 1920..

Any document that did not honor rights for all its citizens, was clearly "UNCONSTITUTIONAL".. in my opinion..

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

I would argue that some are just lighter skinned members of people descended from a common source.

Make no mistake - we (the people) are all brothers.

The 1787 founders, would surely disagree.. Everyone did not belong to their fraternity in 1787 America..

WE, the people did not mean we the people until 1920--- after the 19th amendment was ratified.

Read Spooners, The Constitution of No Authority.

My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[utbagpiper]

Charles
Clearly you know better than that.. I defend the rights of all folks at all times..

I can only read what you post. I try to avoid inferring too much that isn't there. But you are being rather evasive in answers.

At the framing in 1787, people of color did not have a right to keep an bear arms..

Slaves did not have RKBA. Most blacks were slaves. But a few notable blacks were freemen who owned property, including owning slaves of their own.

But I ask again, what does the status of slaves or RKBA in 1787 have to do with today's discussion? Are you merely attempting to denigrate the very document that guarantees and protects our RKBA?

Like I have articulated many of times here, We, the people did not mean all the people in 18th century America.

You keep emphasizing this. You also keep utterly failing to explain what relevance this has on today's discussion or on the rights enjoyed by the people today.

Not until 1920 when woman were permitted to vote aka the 19th amendment, did We the people, truly mean ALL THE PEOPLE..

False. The 19th amendment set a national standard. The Utah territory granted women the franchise in 1870. Though bigots in congress revoked that in 1887, the Utah State Constitution of 1895 included voting rights for women.

But again, what does this have to do with blacks' RKBA today, in 2017?

Charles, please refrain from putting words in my mouth..

Answer with clarity rather than evasion and there is a lot less empty space that might be filled. Nature abhors a vacuum.

In my opinion the Constitution was a " fraud" until 1920..

Any document that did not honor rights for all its citizens, was clearly "UNCONSTITUTIONAL".. in my opinion..

You're entitled to your opinions. My opinion is that such opinions of our federal Constitution are historically callow and shortsighted.

But regardless, since we are quickly approaching a full 100 years since 1920, what does any of this have to do with RKBA in 2017?