Friendly Banter

Hey, @oceanhawk, did you know in 1967 Reagan signed an act that was aimed at diminishing the rights of black people in California?

Quasi-duck wrote:

Hey, @oceanhawk, did you know in 1968 Reagan signed an act that was aimed at diminishing the rights of black people in California?

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Hey, @oceanhawk, did you know in 1968 Reagan signed an act that was aimed at diminishing the rights of black people in California?

Are you referring to the Mulford act? and that was in 1967

But yes, I do mean the Mulford Act.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Hey, @oceanhawk, did you know in 1968 Reagan signed an act that was aimed at diminishing the rights of black people in California?

Are you referring to the Mulford act? and that was in 1967

Oh, where I read it said it was '68.

But yes, I do mean the Mulford Act.

It was diminishing the right to carry arms in public, but it wasnt limited to Black People or White People

oceanhawk wrote:

It was diminishing the right to carry arms in public, but it wasnt limited to Black People or White People

oceanhawk wrote:

Well, it wasnt diminishing the rights of Black people.. .

It was diminishing the right to carry arms in public, but it wasnt limited to Black People or White People

purplepizza117 wrote:

Absolutely true. It was meant so that Black Panther groups couldn't patrol neighbourhoods with loaded guns.

The BPP were patrolling the streets of Oakland, CA. to stop police brutality against black people. They would stand back from an arrest, with loaded guns, and make sure the police did not break the law.

Then this law came in, which outlawed then protecting themselves and each other.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Well, it wasnt diminishing the rights of Black people.. .

It was diminishing the right to carry arms in public, but it wasnt limited to Black People or White People

purplepizza117 wrote:

Absolutely true. It was meant so that Black Panther groups couldn't patrol neighbourhoods with loaded guns.

Neither of you seem to understand what the BPP was doing.....

The BPP were patrolling the streets of Oakland, CA. to stop police brutality against black people. They would stand back from an arrest, with loaded guns, and make sure the police did not break the law.

Then this law came in, which outlawed then protecting themselves and each other.

The police are there to enforce the law, if they fail to do so, that doesnt mean that the power shifts to a random group of armed terrorists

oceanhawk wrote:

So a bit like in rouge valley the other day?

oceanhawk wrote:

The police are there to enforce the law, if they fail to do so, that doesnt mean that the power shifts to a random group of armed terrorists

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

So a bit like in rouge valley the other day?

What?

oceanhawk wrote:

The police are there to enforce the law, if they fail to do so, that doesnt mean that the power shifts to a random group of armed terrorists

Tell me that after being hospitalised because you were caught speeding. They were not terrorists either, what they did was within their rights, and completely lawful.

What is happening in America is horrible and wrong, but having a group of marxist idiotic people running around with guns, trying to start another civil war

oceanhawk wrote:

What is happening in America is horrible and wrong, but having a group of marxist idiotic people running around with guns, trying to start another civil war

It really says something about you when call a black civil rights group idiots and terrorists.

When a friendly banter thread turn into a battlefield of social justice warriors and Keyboard warriors

Ellio_98 wrote:

social justice warriors

This is the fourth time we've deviated. Gaben help us all.

Lord Asher wrote:

Gaben help us all.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

What is happening in America is horrible and wrong, but having a group of marxist idiotic people running around with guns, trying to start another civil war

This was in the 60's, it was completely lawful, the people were all actually incredibly smart, and were not trying to start another civil war.

It really says something about you when call a black civil rights group idiots and terrorists.

No, Luther was smart, when he wanted no violence

oceanhawk wrote:

Wasnt much civil about them....

oceanhawk wrote:

No, Luther was smart, when he wanted no violence

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Wasnt much civil about them....

How? Everything was within in the law, and it was to make the police more civil.

oceanhawk wrote:

No, Luther was smart, when he wanted no violence

Neither did the BPP, but the police did.

The Black panthers, had shoot outs with police, they tried to conduct bombings

They did set out to use violence. Walking around marching in black uniform clothing, carrying rifles.

oceanhawk wrote:

The Black panthers, had shoot outs with police, they tried to conduct bombings

oceanhawk wrote:

They did set out to use violence. Walking around marching in black uniform clothing, carrying rifles.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

The Black panthers, had shoot outs with police, they tried to conduct bombings

You idiot.... Look up Fred Hampton. Most of that was COINTELPRO bs.

oceanhawk wrote:

They did set out to use violence. Walking around marching in black uniform clothing, carrying rifles.

That isn't setting out to use violence.... That is called forming a militia, which is protected under US law. Granted they did not have it recognised by the state, but the state would not have let them form a black civil rights militia anyway.

this is not banter.

I am going to have to side with ocean for this. Black panthers, while definitely with honorable intentions, was often an unlawful organisation. No matter what your intentions are, if you are preventing the police from doing their jobs with threat of lethal force, you need to be stopped.