Should all Black folks and Gay folks be treated as if they are carrying AR-15s in public?

[stone space]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by krispos42 (a host of the Gun Control & RKBA group).

Ok, there's something about right wing gun mentality that I find quite disturbing whenever I encounter it here on DU.

That is the notion that Black folks and Gay folks should be treated as if they are carrying deadly weapons.

Treating Black folks and Gay folks better than the typical yahoo on the street toting an AR-15 is claimed to be a violation of civil rights.

We are expected to dial 911 as quickly upon sight of Black and Gay folks as we would upon sight of somebody in a restaurant or a college classroom with an AR-15.

Anything less is said to be disrespecting the civil rights of yahoos with AR-15s.

Personally, I find this inability to distinguish between human beings and deadly weapons rather racist and homophobic.

It treats Blacks and Gays as if they are deadly weapons, rather than as human beings.

Now, I understand that some yahoos with AR-15s might be offended if folks run away and flee for their lives. They might feel that their civil rights are being violated by people fleeing from their guns.

But that is no reason for them to label folks who run for their lives from guns as "thieves", especially when they know that there is a contingent of gun nuts who feel perfectly justified in shooting folks perceived as "thieves" that are running away. In that context, the labeling of people as "thieves" simply for running away seems particularly dangerous.

I know what it is like for people to leave a restaurant with the check unpaid after ordering because of your presence.

A couple of years ago, my wife and I celebrated our 16th Anniversary with a trip to Chicago and Niagara falls.

We got married in 1996, but we never actually had a honeymoon back then, so this was our big chance.

While in Chicago, we stopped at a Pizza Place.

Anyway, there were tables on the street in front of the place, so we sat there. So did a guy with what appeared to be his two sons. The waiter came around to his table and took his order. Soon after that, they all looked towards us, and gave us dirty looks. They got up and left without paying, after giving their order to the waiter, and just left the menus on the table, leaving the waiter to wonder what had happened.

We felt like we had AR-15s strapped to our backs or something, the way that they looked at us and scurried out of there after seeing us.

I mean, what were they so afraid of?

We didn't start calling them "thieves" and stuff like some folks here are so quick to do here when they think about the same thing happening to an AR-15.

We didn't like being treated as if we were deadly weapons simply because we are an interracial couple.

It is offensive and racist.

We are human beings, not deadly weapons, and we deserve to be treated as human beings, not as deadly weapons.

At least in our opinion we do. Some here may disagree. (And I know some do.)

Now, it didn't ruin our Anniversary, and we went on to Niagara Falls, but every time somebody says that running away from us is the same as running away from an AR-15, I think back to that day, and I realize that we are viewed as deadly weapons by some here at DU.

It may seem the same to some here who have difficulty distinguishing between human beings and deadly weapons, but to us, it feels much, much different.

30 years ago, in 1986, the US Supreme Court made an infamous homophobic ruling in Bowers v Hardwick. (Later overturned in Lawrence v Texas.) It was also the year that I moved to Baltimore for graduate school. The next year, in 1987, I was fortunate to be living in the area and to be able to participate in the Gay Rights March on Washington in opposition to that ruling. In conjunction with the march, 481 of us engaged in a nonviolent civil disobedience, sitting on the steps of the US Supreme Court demanding that Bowers be overturned. We were arrested and held for 48 hours before being released from custody.

None of the folks arrested on those steps was a deadly weapon, although they were sometimes considered as such. (Cops used to wear rubber gloves while making arrests, for example.) They were all human beings.

Treating Gays as deadly weapons was offensive then, and it is just as offensive now.

And it is a direct slap in the face to every Gay person sitting on the steps of the Supreme Court that day.

We've never been in a restaurant with ammosexuals before, but we've come within 2 weeks of such a thing happening. Two weeks after we ate at one restaurant, people entered the restaurant with their guns and kidnapped somewhere between 75 and 100 people.

A couple of years later, we visited the site (the restaurant closed after the mass kidnapping by the ammosexuals), and friends showed us where a couple of the customers had managed to escaped to safety (a euphemism for sliding down a frickin' cliff! Lots of mountains there). They were sharp enough to notice the guns early and they run away quickly. Dozens of others weren't so lucky.

But they got away. Because they ran at the first sight of the guns.

It's not the same thing to run away from deadly weapons as to run away from people simply because of their race or sexual orientation.

It's just not the same, and folks here who repeatedly and enthusiastically claim that it is the same are being racist and homophobic in the extreme, IMNSHO.

People run from deadly weapons for a reason. Some might not agree with that reason, but they shouldn't act like it is for no reason.

People who run from somebody because they are Black or Gay or because they are an interracial couple are racist and homophobic assholes.

But that's just my opinion. What's yours?

Should all Black folks and Gay folks be treated as if they are carrying AR-15s in public?

3 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Poll closed
	Yes.
	0 (0%)
	No.
	3 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[sarisataka]

1. What mass kidnapping

Are you referring to? A kidnapping that involves 75 to 100 people at a restaurant does not ring any bells.

[sarisataka]

3. What restaurant?

Was it in the United States? When did it happen?

[sarisataka]

9. So an interesting

Personal anecdote that has nothing to do with US crime, gun law or gun "culture".

Still I do agree with your base premise. People are people and should be treated as such, equally.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. Okay, this is a truly bizarre post...

...even considering the source.

[Press Virginia]

36. No kidding.

I definitely don't want him to own guns. I don't even want him looking at pictures of guns.

[TipTok]

5. Wow...

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

7. I take it from the photo....

...you are a mixed ethnicity hetero couple?

My apologies if I am wrong.

I have no idea of the background of your premise 'same as an AR-15' having only been here for 2 months.

I assume you mean that people have treated you worse than gun owners expect to be treated when they carry in public.

I cannot account for Chicago, never having been there. I was to Niagara falls twice. Not impressed by the people (the merchants) but the falls were fantastic.

I do not know the location of the incident in the diner, the cliff rules out the incident in Nassau County, NY about 30 (??) years ago in which two criminals with guns took over the restaurant and brutalized the patrons.

Your essay is very moving, and I will respond with two separate thoughts:

1) If you have been mistreated due to being a mixed ethnicity couple, I would like to welcome you to my area of this beautiful state, the Catskills region of upstate New York. From Niagra Falls, head east to Syracuse, south to Binghamton, and about two hours east from there. It is beautiful country, and was the east coast home to the 'peace and love' revolution of the 1960s. You can still hear the music echoing across the hillside.

2) As for criminal acts, these people were criminals. Plain and simple. They used guns. So did many people who were on the wrong side of history - the British during the Revolution, the Nazis during WW2, the Viet Cong, the Taliban, etc.

Firearms can be used for evil purposes, the same way technology can, religion can, nationalism can, and so on.

I am not going to trot out worn tired cliches, and no, I do not believe that one lone good guy with a gun can reliably stop a bad guy with a gun, unless he is extremely lucky. He will probably be killed in the process.

I carry a sidearm (one that is considered by many to be obsolete and ill-equipped for the modern world) only after years and years of training and periodic re-qualification. I am trained to the level of a police officer, know the laws of legal carry and of deadly force better than most cops, and meticulously mind my own business.

I don't know if I will ever be in a situation again in my life in which I have to come to the aid of a civilian that I do not know.

I do not want to sound brave, I don't want to sound macho, but as the carrier of a licensed handgun, I believe that I am part of a social contract. Some may disagree....

I believe that if god forbid I am somewhere where I can make a difference, I will be running toward the problem, not away from it.

If it costs me my life, then that is the price I pay for living in a society whose rules and laws are more important than myself.

Best wishes;

CFS

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

10. Where is the restaurant...

....in your essay?

I had been to the diner in Nassau county several weeks before the incident.

It is one of the reasons I obtained a license to carry, which, on Long Island, is even more difficult to get than in other parts of the state except NYC.

I still think about that incident, playing 'what-if' scenarios in my mind, for the past 34 years.

To my dying day - this is the one time I would have wanted to be somewhere I was not - to do whatever I could have done.

Watch out, contains some disturbing information....

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/28/nyregion/prison-release-recalls-horror-li-diner-1982-rampage-led-law-raising-felony.html?pagewanted=all

[Jackie Wilson Said]

28. I think carrying a gun with you is a childish and ridiculous thing to do, and I honestly

dont mean that as a personal insult, I have friends who have guns but it is what I believe.

Having said that, when I go to a movie theater now I spend most of my time wondering if I am going to be shot.

This is the fault of Scalia and company purposely misinterpreting the 2nd with Heller.

I should have the right to live in a state where we can outlaw guns as the 2nd clearly allows us to do, guns that are not part of a well regulated militia.

So guns have made shit SO bad here, that what you are doing almost makes sense.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

29. Would you mind telling me what state you live in?

I'm in NY.

From there we can take a look at the laws and information that you may find of use to you regarding this topic

[Jackie Wilson Said]

30. Not relevant, and I truly didnt mean an insult. What is relevant is REGARDLESS of

the 2nd, which we clearly wont agree on, guns are making things worse.

Agreed?

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

32. The laws vary from state to state so much, that it is almost impossible to have....

...a coherent conversation with someone who lives 'in the world somewhere.'

I wrote an essay this morning on open carry.

If you read it, look at the map I included, and keep in mind some of the corrections I noted, you will get a sense of the states in which you are more or less likely to see a handgun being carried openly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172191586

What you must bear in mind is that the vast majority of the laws that you and I and everyone else obeys on a daily basis are state laws.

Unless you are in a business that is under heavy federal regulation, most of us only deal with the federal government on a day to day basis when we go to the post office.

Heller did not change much. Yes, it was a symbolic victory (or defeat depending on where you stand) but most laws regarding firearms - except for point of purchase background check and the dimensions of a rifle - (barrel length, overall length)...

........Most laws are state laws.

You can affect state laws in several ways..... voting, supporting certain candidates, or even moving to a state you feel suits you needs and political viewpoints better.

If you live in New Jersey or Massachusetts and don't like guns, well, that's a good fit.

If you live in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky.....

[Jackie Wilson Said]

33. What I mean is the 2nd clearly restricts your rights to well regulated militia...so if I lived in a

state with more non gun folks than pro gun folks, then just about all guns could be outlawed other than those in the militia.

I could then not have to worry about being shot, as much.

Sure, people would bring them over state line, so as long as there is ONE gun in this country, the risk is there.

[gejohnston]

37. no it doesn't

the BoR restricts the government, not the individual.
It has always been an individual right, there has never been a SCOTUS case saying anything different.
There is no historical or legal evidence to support that nonsense.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

49. From my expereince....

....you are talking about New Jersey, which is a gun banner's paradise.

Only problem, the bad guys don't obey the laws, and Camden, Trenton and Newark are some of the most violent places in America.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

50. If nobody had guns, nobody would get shot.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

51. Okay.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

53. Are you a Vietnam veteran? There are two movies coming out this year on LBJ

HBO has one with "Breaking Bad" star Bryan Cranston and Rob Reiner is doing one where Woody Harrelson plays LBJ.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

55. No

I was 13 y/o when in ended.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

56. LBJ has a weird history, I find it fascinating, especially the civil rights.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

59. He literaly had two very different sides....

He was a morose and brooding character when it came to international politics and war, yet he was a civil rights crusader in his own right.

[ileus]

13. Why would you treat people who carry ARs badly?

[beevul]

14. Potato.

Unsung lampshade mineral.

[Straw Man]

16. Mental gymnastics.

Ok, there's something about right wing gun mentality that I find quite disturbing whenever I encounter it here on DU.

That is the notion that Black folks and Gay folks should be treated as if they are carrying deadly weapons.

Treating Black folks and Gay folks better than the typical yahoo on the street toting an AR-15 is claimed to be a violation of civil rights.

Uh ... you've got it backwards. Treating the AR-15 toter worse than anyone else is the violation.

We are expected to dial 911 as quickly upon sight of Black and Gay folks as we would upon sight of somebody in a restaurant or a college classroom with an AR-15.

Could you please show us where anyone has advocated for that?

[Straw Man]

18. Only if they are being used in an offensive manner.

But human beings should not be treated like deadly weapons.

No one here has advocated that they should. That was your own rather bizarre straw man.

[Straw Man]

21. A gun in a holster isn't being "used."

What's the point of running AFTER they are used?

Kinda' defeats the whole point of running away if you wait that long, doesn't it?

You're going to be doing a lot of useless running if you're in an open-carry state.

The whole point of running away is to get away BEFORE the gun is used.

Unless you can run faster than a speeding bullet.

If you are faced with someone who is bent on shooting you, you won't get far even if you run before the trigger is pulled.

[Straw Man]

23. If you're in an open-carry state ...

Good time to make a run for it.

... make sure you've paid for your food first.

[Straw Man]

25. Actually, it is.

While the person legally carrying is ordering his dinner and you're running for the hills, what do you think your waiter will be doing? Will he be (a) dialing 911 because you ran off without paying, or (b) relaxing because he knows you're a good person who just got spooked by the big bad gun and will be back eventually to settle his tab?

I'm going with (a), Bob.

[Straw Man]

31. Really?

You seem to be under the misimpression that the waiter is necessarily stupid and doesn't know why I'm running.

We can settle up once we're out of the line of fire, and the police have been notified.

Nothing of the kind. If you're running from a restaurant where there is no emergency or cause for alarm, the waiter would be perfectly justified in wondering what you're doing.

Why are you assuming vindictiveness and dishonesty on the part of the waiter?

You assume that the waiter will lie to the cops and claim that I'm a thief.

What would be his motivation to lie?

He would not be lying if he said you ran out of the restaurant for no reason and did not pay for your food. That would be the truth. It would be incumbent upon you to explain why you ran when there was no emergency. I assume you wouldn't be charged as long as you paid for your food, but the waiter would have done nothing wrong.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

35. Good luck running from guns....

....in upstate New York in November.

(In the restaurant)

Oh shit, men with guns, I'm running....

Guy runs outside..... Pause.....

Guy comes back in.....

Starts counting.....

Excuse me, sir, what are you counting?

I'm counting the number of guns in this restaurant......

Because there are even more outside!!!!!

[DashOneBravo]

20. K & R!

[gwheezie]

27. I get the hell out when I see armed people

I have no way of knowing if they are good guys or bad guys. My 1st reaction to danger is to leave.

[gejohnston]

40. If you go to Switzerland or Germany,

don't go during Schützenfest

[DonP]

46. Been there for Schutzenefest, Zurich in '77, very strange on the train

To see the older guys with their K31 Schmidt Rubins with their families laughing and heading for a range with a picnic lunch.

OTOH, maybe if we had that on the Chicago EL it might be a whole lot more peaceful and safe.

Funny, I didn't see a single panicky Swiss citizen running out on their bill in the whole city? Maybe they just are calmer than folks from Iowa?

[gwheezie]

63. Well I have been shot at

I was running away. I'm alive. I can't prove I wouldn't still be alive if I took another action but I can prove I'm alive now. It was a split second decision and I was sure I was going to be shot in the back but apparently it's harder to hit a moving target. So maybe it's ptsd or something but I'm not sticking around.

[DonP]

71. I've been shot twice, stabbed and blown up a couple of times, what's your point?

And your personal tale of terror has what exactly to do with Schutzenfest in Switzerland?

[gejohnston]

38. I have question,

there are black and gay folks at the range I go to. Some of them have ARs, mostly pistols. Why would I treat them different than a straight or other color person?

Question is, would YOU treat a black or gay person with and AR differently? How about a lever or bolt action? What if he has a TAVOR? AUG?
I've stood in lunch lines with people who had loaded machine guns. I don't know if they were straight or not. Didn't care, since they were on my side.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

41. Please see post #35

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

43. Just a little humor...

...to prove a point about culture.

I am sure Iowa is gun country, isn't it?

[Hangingon]

47. Do you have a link to the mall shooting?

[TeddyR]

48. I'm not sure I get your point here

There's certainly nothing wrong with "black folks," "gay folks" or people who legally carry AR-15s in public, so why should we be worried about them? Nobody is breaking the law by being "black," "gay" or openly carrying an AR-15 (assuming permitted in the locale) so why are you making this comparison?

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

54. A photo of a 'Black Man with a Gun' that went viral recently.

?

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

62. Gay couples are at more risk for violence than hetero couples.

This is why I have heard of many who have taken to carrying firearms in self defense.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

67. No

But I am familiar with the holosight on the AR.

If the battery dies, you're screwed.

[gejohnston]

72. Although I don't like him comparing Obama to Stalin and Mao,

I do like a couple of his posters. Like this one

[gejohnston]

74. First, English isn't his first language

IIRC, he is an immigrant from Russia. It might have something to do with translation. It could be if gun geeks were as violent as some fear mongers claim, there wouldn't be any gun control activists. Think about it.
BTW, Columbia and Venezuela ban all private ownership of guns. How is that working out for them? Sort of like Mexico and Brazil isn't it?
BTW, heroin kills more people than all homicide weapons combined in the US. How is that ban working out for us?

[gejohnston]

76. I'm sure there are,

most of them are not legal. I must correct myself on one thing, there is legal gun ownership in Columbia, but I seriously doubt cartel types bothering to get licenses and registering their guns anymore the gangs in Newark, Detroit, Chicago bother to.
http://www.as-coa.org/articles/explainer-gun-laws-latin-americas-six-largest-economies

There are a lot of guns where I live. Over half of the households have at least one firearm in my state. The last gun murder was two decades ago in an armed robbery. The last murder was an infant being beaten to death.
This is another good one, and shows the dicotimy of guns. BTW, since skeet is growing in popularity in high school sports, what if your kid wants to try out for it? How about pistol or rifle in college or Olympics? Biathlon?

[TeddyR]

60. You make odd connections

And weird leaps of logic. You contend that Zimmerman is a "cold-blooded murderer" and then have this strange post about "black folks," "gay folks," and those who legally carry AR-15s and then attempt to argue that two unrelated threads are related?

On edit, I went back and read the posts and am even more flummoxed - you say I was "explicit" about something - what was I explicit about?

[TeddyR]

64. You like to obfuscate

What does everybody understand?

Setting aside your inability to answer straightforward questions, you do agree that Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty by a jury of his peers (comprised of 6 females) and that the Department of Justice determined there wasn't enough evidence to bring hate crime charges, correct?

[TeddyR]

69. I'm happy to debate this issue with you

But not if you are going to keep ignoring facts. Please answer the question from my previous post about Zimmerman's trial. If you refuse to acknowledge undisputed facts then not sure why we should continue this discussion.

And I have to edit again - please point to the post where I openly supported Zimmerman. You called him a "cold blooded murderer," and I pointed out that in fact he was absolved by a jury of his peers of any crime. I asked if you disagreed with that fact and you ignored it. Then you went on to say I "support" Zimmerman and insinuated that I'm a racist. I try not to make unsubstantiated accusations myself.

[krispos42]

77. Locking

This post is primarily about race and racism in everyday social situations. While interesting and unfortunate, the story belongs elsewhere on DU as it does not fit the SoP of the Group.

Regards,
Krispos42, Group Host