Should blacks and POC have the same right to keep and bear arms as white people?

[Eleanors38]

tRump doesn't think so.

(Hosts: Please note I rarely post about guns in GD, trying to follow the hazy rules about such in this forum. But evidently, Don the Con has made it a real issue.)

As several posts on this subject have indicated, tRump has adopted Michael Bloomberg's NYC "Stop & Frisk" policy for use at the national level. Bloomberg, noted gun controller who funds several control efforts around the country, was widely criticized for this policy in NYC as it was widely seen as profiling and targeting blacks and POC, thereby restricting their constitutional rights. Indeed, tRump has specifically proposed stop-and-frisk as a means to disarm black people based on suspicion and "knowing" (somehow) that they are carrying a gun, normally allowed by the Second Amendment.

So, I put it to DU: Should blacks and POC enjoy the same Right to Keep Bear Arms as do white people? Or is stop and frisk a reasonable price to pay in order to disarm Some people, all for the greater good and in the interest of a gun-control agenda? I would remind everyone, tRump's policy proposal would be National, somehow covering all states according to his brief knowledge of federalism, and I would also remind folks that pro-RKBA DUers do Not support tRump. Speculate as you will on what the NRA thinks, but the question is to YOU.

[Angry Dragon]

1. He walked that back ....now it would only cover Chicago

[Shandris]

2. I'm sorry, I must be missing something. What is the fundamental difference that will exist...

...enshrined in law that differentiates between 'white' owners and 'black' owners, and how is 'black' to be defined?*

*or 'PoC', whichever is used.

I'm not real familiar with what's being proposed here, but I'd like to be.

[Eleanors38]

15. Please review the last couple of days of posts in GD referencing tRump's proposal

to use Bloomberg's "stop and frisk" policy in NYC on a national basis. I believe my summation is clear enough. Define People of Color or "black" as you wish.

[bluesbassman]

3. We should all enjoy the same rights, period. n/t

[kcr]

4. It's pretty obvious why YOU are asking DU this question. n/t

[Eleanors38]

12. And your view?

[kcr]

16. My view is it's clear from the responses to your OP that no one is buying it n/t

[malaise]

26. Hehehehehehe

Touche!!!

[LanternWaste]

5. I do not believe your question is in good faith nor sincere.

I do not believe your question is in good faith nor sincere. I believe you are looking for particular answers to better validate an already existing pro-gun bias. Hence, this post should be in the Gungeon.

[Hoyt]

10. Exactly.

[Eleanors38]

14. Oh, my. Just start out with a question of character, why don't you?

Get real.

Edit: Nos. 3, 6, 8, 13 understood my question, and gave forthright answers. How about your view?

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. *Anything* to avoid admitting that S&F originated from a leading gun control advocate, Bloomberg...

...and that Trump is merely borrowing his schtick.

[kcr]

37. *Anything* to avoid admitting some don't give a shit about black people being killed.

Stop and frisk has nothing to do with gun control.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. "Stop and frisk has nothing to do with gun control." Bullshit. That's how it was marketed

It was sold by Bloomberg as a way to get illegal guns off the streets:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/06/29/bloomberg-angered-by-overturned-conviction-in-stop-and-frisk-case/

Bloomberg Angered By Overturned Conviction In Stop-And-Frisk Case

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – The weapons possession conviction of a 14-year-old boy who was found with a loaded gun after a stop-and-frisk in the Bronx was overturned in an appeals court Thursday...

...While critics of stop-and-frisk claim the practice promotes racial profiling and unwarranted searches of minorities, both Bloomberg and New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly say they help keep New Yorkers safe.

“The decision by the Appellate Division to dismiss the case against a teenager in possession of a loaded semiautomatic gun may be as dangerous as the weapon itself,” Kelly wrote in an op-ed for the New York Post.

“Through necessary enforcement — of which stops are one element — we are doing everything we can to ensure that more citizens don’t face the barrel of a gun, as the officers shot this year have had to do,” he added.

While we're at it-

Why don't you go ahead and point out for us the "some" who "don't give a shit"?

I, for one, am quite willing to dispute the point with any and all of these purported "some"...
...provided, of course, they actually exist and are not made of straw.

Because I sure as fuck give a shit. You seem to have somehow gotten the mistaken impression
that it is yours to vet how others feel and how they approach the subject

[sarisataka]

17. I don't see how the question can be insincere

It is simply asking a form of should a POC have the same rights as a white person. The answers are yes or no, to say "it depends" is essentially saying no.

Answering affirmatively to the question in no way is adhering to a "pro-gun agenda". It is merely affirming that all people in the United States should have the same rights.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. I think the attacks on the OP's character are meant to avoid an awkward question.

[Major Nikon]

44. Every now and then the gungeon tends to back up and overflow into GD

Never ceases to amaze the creative ways people have to bring up the subject of precious.

[hack89]

45. Bansalot overflows a lot more

Anti-gunners ignore the TOS a lot more.

[Major Nikon]

47. Yeah right

The TOS makes zero mention of the subject. Even if you could get someone to buy that nonsense the very best you'd have is trying to make a right out of two wrongs. The only reason gun control has a protected group at all is because every single GD thread on the subject gets inundated with those who love to talk about precious and vigorously defend Scalia's warped legal theories.

[hack89]

49. There should be no gun threads in GD

Just like there should be no IP threads. They are too nasty.

[Major Nikon]

50. Perhaps, but those who own the sandbox say otherwise

Their thoughts on the subject tend to be the ones that count.

[hack89]

52. So quit whining when pro-gun posters follow the threads in GD

There is already a no-dissent forum for anti-gunners. No need to turn GD into another.

[Major Nikon]

54. I didn't bring that subject up to begin with

So you might want to save some of your finger wagging for the author of the OP, as if that's ever going to happen.

[Fla Dem]

6. A national Stop & Frisk policy only for POC is absurd. Not only is it blatantly discriminatory

but it would do nothing to control guns, legal or otherwise. This is a disingenuous argument.

[Hoyt]

7. Yes, except the NRA and white gunners have gone too far with gun rights because

the vast majority of the whites are arming up due to an irrational fear of minorities.

There should be equal restrictions on gunz, just more restrictions on everyone, particularly public toting, number and types of guns people can keep, background checks, bullets, psychiatric exams for militia types, jail terns for shooting unarmed kids, etc.

[allan01]

8. the same right to bear arms covers EVRYBODY, including ,blacks and soforth . end of story.

[allan01]

9. what is poc . do knot know poc.

[Eleanors38]

11. Shorthand around here for People of Color.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. not just around here. nt

[sarisataka]

13. Of course everyone

Regardless of skin color should have the same rights; including the right to keep and bear arms.

It is amazing that anyone on a Democratic site would waffle at the question of equal rights.

Edit to add - stop and frisk is an abomination on par with Bush's Patriot Act. It should exist in no form in this country.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. i dont think individual gun ownership should be so easy, for white people either.

[Eleanors38]

20. I appreciate your forthright answer.

It seems policies and beliefs can sometimes clash, even when folks are generally on the same side.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. i think your question is anything but forthright. it sounds like you are pro-NRA and are pretending

to be pro-POC.

[Eleanors38]

23. As I said above to snother poster, you are attacking my character and motives...

with unsubstantiated argument. But that is the crappy game played around here when it comes to the Second Amendment, right?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. No it's the game played when the rest of us

Feel played

[Eleanors38]

38. Your notion of "being played" stems from the cognitive dissonance controllers experience...

...when one of their leading lights, Michael Bloomberg, uses SAF to lower crime rates (seemingly with little objection), and tRump wants the plan writ lodge in order to effect selective gun control. Falling out of the controller/banner "ComfortZone" can certainly cause some to lash out with personal attacks.

Incidentally, I think tRump is no friend of the Second, and that is one of many, many reasons I do not support him.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. Just as I thought this has nothing to do with bein

An ally to black people but individual and absolute gun rights insanity.

[Eleanors38]

40. Heh. I am "absolutely" opposed to criminals having guns. But due process is required

to determine criminality.

I support Everyone but criminals in exercising their RKBA. That includes folks like Robert F. Williams, the Deacons for Defense and Justice, Fannie Lou Hammer, Rosa Parks, and the H.P. Newton Gun Club. And that includes you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. +1. Couldn't have said it better myself...

[ileus]

60. You can be a progressive on the 2A without the NRA.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. Being progressive on the 2A includes reading

The whole amendment not just half of it.

[JoePhilly]

22. If one supports "Stop and Frisk", the answer to your question is "no".

Anyone with a brain (even a barely functioning brain) knows that the intent of "Stop and Frisk", is to allow the police to search any PoC they want, for any reason they want.

Period.

[Calculating]

24. SAF is purely discriminatory in nature

Stop and frisk gives the cops the right to search any 'suspicious looking' colored person they see without probable cause. I think Trump stepped in a big pile of shit with this one.

[Eleanors38]

25. Yes, in many ways.

[roamer65]

27. They already have the right and should exercise it. N/t

[MicaelS]

28. Of course they should.

No way there should be any difference.

[ismnotwasm]

29. Is this a trick question?

Because I'm not seeing it. The answer is of course, blacks and PoC should have the exact same rights to keep and bear arms as white people, including any laws that come out of gun reform implemented to reduce gun violence.

The fact that we have blatantly racist laws on every conceivable topic including gun ownership doesn't change this. Racist laws are in violation of the constitution-- or should be.

[Eleanors38]

30. Thank you for your answer.

[Monk06]

31. 2nd ammendment does not apply to POC If you are a black man and you have a gun in your car

even the cops will shout "He's got a gun!!!" into their recorders and then start shooting until said male POC is dead Then they will leave him to bleed out without calling EMTs

I see it over and over again on Youtube videos

Meanwhile white perps are given enough time to get out of their cars and start shooting I have also seen that a lot on Youtube vids

Definitely a double standard the way cops treat male POCs especially

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Of course!

[stone space]

36. I'm not buying it.

[Major Nikon]

43. The 2nd amendment doesn't "allow" anyone to carry a gun in public

Nice try, but your attempt at framing the proliferation of guns into society as a civil rights issue fails brilliantly.

Meanwhile if the gun death rate of white people where anywhere near what it is for POC, there wouldn't be a debate on the subject at all.

[hack89]

46. True. Public sentiment is why open carry is popular

The 2A allows strict regulation of guns. Lack of popular support is why it never happens.

[Major Nikon]

48. Sure, has absolutely nothing to do with the gunnut lobby allied with the far right wing

Meanwhile back in the world most call reality the "popular support" for less restriction of guns usually doesn't hit double digits.

[hack89]

51. The gun control lobby is weak, disjointed and ineffective

Which makes it easy for the pro-gun lobby. It does not seem to have the support of progress movements like the pro-choice or marriage equality movements. It says a lot that their leading proponent is an ex-republican, authoritative billionaire that gave us stop and frisk.

Make all the excuses you want - gun control is a smoking wreck in America. That wouldn't be the case if people really cared that much about it. And that is the truth of the matter - it is simply not a high priority with voters. That is why Dems can ignore the issue and still get elected.

[Major Nikon]

55. Sure I'm the one excusing reality

Noted how you conveniently ignored the graphic which utterly destroyed your assertion that gun proliferation is "popular".

[hack89]

56. The thing is those polls never turn into votes

Which was exactly my point. People care but not enough to actually do anything about it. The don't organize, they don't donate, they don't punish politicians for ignoring the issue.

If you were correct we would not see state after state liberalize their gun laws. After all, all those voters oppose looser gun laws. Except they don't really seem to care that much.

There is a good reason I feel comfortable voting for Hillary. Just like Obama she will be good for gun owners.

[Eleanors38]

57. Actually, the Second recognizes the right to "bear" arms. It is specious to say

this doesn't include carrying in public.

The states DO have the power to regulate the manner of carry -- either open or concealed -- and can even attach a reasonable, non-discriminatory test for that carry, but not the Jim [large, raucous black bird] regulations which characterize, ironically, some Northern state/local laws. I am glad to have this opportunity to once again correct this viewpoint.

The other speculation remains just that.

[underthematrix]

53. Someone needs a pocket Constitution.

Yes because all US citizens have equal protection under the LAW - 14th Amendment

Jim Crow is mostly dead but he does pop up when police stop black and brown people. WE're on it though.

So the answer is yes. All US citizens who so desire and who are not restricted by law from doing so should be able to own, purchase and maintain a gun as long as they can clear a background check - FIRST

[Eleanors38]

58. Thank you. I quite agree.

[ileus]

59. The 2A is there for everyone, so we don't have to be willing victims. Such a basic right...

[etherealtruth]

62. Though I am horrified by the culture of the gun that has permeated US society

All people, without regard to gender, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation ... should (are supposed to be) be equal under the law.

[Eleanors38]

63. Thank you for your response.