https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4&feature=youtu.be

some poster a while ago said something like (paraphrasing, was it Bin?) "what would happen if a black man walked around with a rifle the way white guys do?"
well, here you go.

***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

That was definitely a dangerous situation for bruh to be in. We all pretty much knew how this was going to turn out though.

them have historical been better at surviving.

i cant

.
.
.
"Jesus is my Lord and Savior. And if you believe in him can be your's too."

The police are there for a reason so why does the average citizen need to carry an AR-15?

and im going to assume the 2nd part of your statement was sarcasm

They have them for
hunting (where legal)
Competitive & recreational shooting
Home security
Some people collecting semi's and autos as a financial investment, while some collect them from a historic standpoint.

There are very few things in the world anyone REALLY needs

they seem more like the people responsible for investigating and solving crimes.


i dont see how carrying an ar around somehow overlaps with police responsibility

Answer that question unbiasedly.

To me this video was more of a testament to open carry harassment than race but the difference between how the officers approached the two men could be what their focusing on. I applaud them for attempting to bring some discussion on this issue.

>they seem more like the people responsible for investigating
>and solving crimes.
>
>
>i dont see how carrying an ar around somehow overlaps with
>police responsibility

Black slave property and plantations in the south ( i.e. slave patrols ) and factories along with the uninterrupted working of factory labor in the north ( e.g. union busters).

Who is in government or holds influence over it? The factory and plantation owners-- so there's the link to who the police actually work for.

>Black slave property and plantations in the south ( i.e.
>slave patrols ) and factories along with the uninterrupted
>working of factory labor in the north ( e.g. union busters).


I think you need to give more background to your post because it is slightly misleading. It has truth to it, but still, slightly misleading.

If I saw anyone walking down the street with a rifle I'd be scared.

But I'm not the police.

In two "open carry" jurisdictions, this does show the difference is attitudes between White males and non-white males carrying firearms.


White guy approached: "Excuse me sir, may I see some ID?"

Non white guy approached: "Down on the street NOW!!" with his pistol drawn. Call in numerous officers to assist. Call in K-9 unit.



Though not a perfect apples to apples comparison, the point is made...police are threatened by non-whites that are armed, even in places where they are legally allowed to be armed.

Where in america could a group of brothers get away the antics of Cliven Bundy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4

Had this been armed black people, rolling up on federal agents, there would have been a horse stampede and a string of dead people in their wake.

White dudes walk all around with theirs but the minute I show mine, I get crazy looks. But 90% of the time I keep mine concealed to avoid the unwanted drama. Sad but true.

Cop asks to see the white boys I.D. and he says no..shiiiiiate.

http://kdvr.com/2014/08/01/aurora-teen-walks-on-busy-streets-with-shotgun-videotapes-encounters-with-police/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Gx73R3p1U

Because the videos feature different police departments.

Also differently levels of "open carry" knowledge amongst the officers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-cvipwCcm8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ7xQK8ryFw

This is all over the place.

I understand that cops can't just make you show ID for walking down the street, but can't they make you prove you're authorized to have a firearm? They can make you prove you have a license if they stop you while driving. I don't see why firearms should be different from automobiles.

but it has nothing to do with guns in particular


some states have "stop and id" type laws basically requiring you to show id if a cop asks.



but since there is no "license" to open carry(concealed is different) there is really no reason to need to check someones identification if they are open carrying (without probable cause)




this all revolves around how much you want to annoy/piss off the police of course when they ask for your ID =)

To obtain a license to operate your car on government roads, you have to sign paperwork that says you'll show your license when asked. Note that you don't need a license to drive a car on private property, cause that's not really any of the government's damn business. But obviously that's only meaningful if you own a big-ass piece of land.

Whereas, an American citizen's Second Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution - although abridged for felons, I guess... So you don't need to show paperwork, because without evidence of a crime, carrying a gun isn't any less legal than walking down the street.

I have the right to vote, but I can't roll up in the polling place to cast a vote without being registered.

You don't need a license to purchase or own a rifle in the majority of this country or even register the rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

Although handgun possession is illegal in NYC, DC, & I think Chicago, and carrying is defacto outlawed in LA, you can still buy a handgun without a license, or a background check, at a gunshow in most places. There can, to my knowledge, be no record any place that a person legally acquired a handgun. The NRA and 2nd amendment rights fight hard against firearm registration, because they're concerned that such a database would enable the government to seize all guns, and enact the tyranny that the 2nd amendment was written to prevent. But, Uncle Sam's got tanks and Predators, I ain't gonna go Rambo with my 9mm, fam.

The National Rifle Association can crow all they want about protecting the rights of gun-owners, but what it's really about is selling guns. There's money in that, so the NRA, funded by gun manufacturers, can afford to lobby Washington to keep it easy for cash to flow in exchange for guns.

The people disenfranchised by voting registration, and moreso by proposed Voter ID laws, are not politically powerful, and by and large are a drain on the system. You can bet that the rich folk who want to pay less in taxes and want to cut the social safety net out from under the poor have NO problems registering to vote, and they want the people held up by that net to lose their right to vote so that senators and presidents can come in and gut entitlement programs.

You DO need a permit, I think everywhere, to concealed-carry. If you don't have that license, then the gun has to be plainly visible to anybody who can see you. Some areas either do not issue these licenses, or enforce rules that are written in such a way that it is up to the Sheriff's discretion (i.e., $$$ or VIP connections). California used to be this way, but was recently changed to what is known as a "shall-issue" state, which means that anybody who wants a license to concealed carry their gun must be given one, provided they pass the requirements (i.e., intensified background check, weapon safety course, $$$).

Also, so-called "open carry" can be illegal in some areas, which would mean that you would need that concealed weapon license in order to have your gun on you, or even in the car with you (accessible by the occupants of the car). But states cannot simultaneously make it illegal to open carry AND difficult to acquire a concealed weapon license - the Supreme Court ruled that this was a defacto violation of the right to bear arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to the sales of firearms to private buyers by private sellers at gun shows. This kind of sale doesn't require or allow the seller to perform a background check on the buyer, and doesn't require the seller to record the sale. The loophole refers to a perceived gap in the law with regard to sales or transfers of firearms between private citizens. The term may also be referred to as the Brady bill loophole, the Brady law loophole, the gun law loophole, and the private sale loophole.

...

Seven gun show loophole bills were introduced in the U.S. House and four in the Senate between 2001 and 2013, but none were passed. As of January 2015, 33 states do not restrict private sales of used firearms between private individuals, whether at gun shows or elsewhere. However, the U.S. capital and the other 17 states do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales.

but that pertains to sales. I thought owners still had to register after purchasing.