I was wondering about the same thing, CT.  Picture a bunch of Oath Keepers prowling around the streets of black neighborhoods packing heat, and then picture a gang of black guys prowling around the streets of white neighborhoods doing the same thing.  Both of them say they are 'honoring the Constitution'.

If someone thinks both groups would be treated equally, they would be delusional.

Conspiracy Theory wrote:

Jeer,   it's not so much that blacks 'wouldn't be allowed' to go arond in armed gangs so much as the reaction to such a gang.

Do you believe an armed group of black men would be treated the same way as an armed group of 'Oathkeepers'?

Of course it is a matter of "wouldn't be allowed".  Negative reaction, either from police or the public to restrict or punish the practice are illegitimate.  The sentiment here is that "separate but equal" is alive and well and is damn good practice . . .  

The recognition and acceptance that Whites can do something without repercussion but Blacks not only will be treated differently, but should expect and accept different treatment, is abhorrent. 

I note with disdain that you assign this group of armed Blacks the descriptor "gang" -- do you believe a group of Blacks can be armed in public in either an exercise of civil and political rights or in actual defense of themselves and others, and do it without criminal intent?

People on the left really need to get through their thick skulls that gun rights are no different than other fundamental rights and that gun rights are a perfect example of the current state of "equal rights for all" in the USA.  That it is so readily accepted (and sadly, celebrated) that Blacks can't (or shouldn’t) open carry like the Oath Keepers, is a statement on the acceptance that Blacks are second class citizens. 

Whether or not you agree with open carry rights you should be demanding and supporting the ability of Blacks to exercise that right as long as Whites can do it without repercussions.

Conspiracy Theory wrote:

Do you believe an armed group of black men would be treated the same way as an armed group of 'Oathkeepers'?

Not in the beginning.  Kindasorta been their path to full rights recognition hasn't it? 

Blacks should still be claiming all their rights and demanding they be recognized and accepted by both authorities AND THE PUBLIC (that’s includes the intolerant left by the way).  Only through the exercise of the right --in the face of adversity—and the refusal to back down, will all rights be recognized.

I read the sentiments here regarding open carry as nothing more than telling Blacks,  'get to the back of the bus and quiet down, we'll tell you what rughts you have' . . .

 

Okay, so gloss over the question.

How about this one:  Are you aware that armed blacks are treated differently from armed whites?

Conspiracy Theory wrote:

Another question:  Where did you get the idea that I'm 'on the left'?

Jeer is all-knowing.
Or, perhaps he just needs a label that he can hang on every person who dares hold an opinion he doesn't like in order to express disdain.?  
 

I get you, Fred. 
I remember a year or so ago people insisting on carrying guns into starbucks, and assault rifles into Home Depot, or a Chipotle. There was even a guy out West sponsoring a 10K armed run.
There was lots of bluster about  their right to do so, but very little discussion about how it was really kinda stupid for them to do so.

Guns have this amazing power to suspend common sense and good judgment. I have this beautiful bamboo fly rod. If I strapped to my back to run the Boston marathon, or took it with me to Home Depot to buy plumbing fixtures, people would think me batshit crazy. But, if it were a gun, some nutjob would be screaming his support.
Go figure.