Tensions high after armed individuals reportedly watch ballot box in Mesa

What China does effects Australia more than any other country. Without communist China Australia's economy would collapse..

 

Incorrect, that’s Dems.

 

While I appreciate your admitting that these armed and masked ballot box "protectors" are idiots-- though I would add, idiots who should not be allowed to be within 100 yards of ballot box, standing with their guns out, to menace voters-- your referring to Black Panthers, leads us to some very interesting reading, an article entitled, "When Black Panthers Carried Guns, Conservatives Supported Gun Control."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...istory-race-black-panther-party-conservatives

<Snip>
In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired; in 2008, the Supreme Court codified a once-extremist view of the Second Amendment, declaring that it protects an individual and not just a collective right to bear arms; in 2012, the Senate failed to pass even symbolic gun control measures after Sandy Hook, while the parents of 20 dead children grieved and then-president Barack Obama cried on national television. Americans’ feelings of hopelessness and futility in the face of gun violence have been confirmed time and again.

Over the same period of time, we have seen political partisanship skyrocket. Mostly since 1994 — when Newt Gingrich and a new wave of Republicans seized Congress in the so-called Republican Revolution, rewriting a new “Contract With America” — political attitudes have shifted toward the poles. Americans increasingly sort themselves by political belief structure, and political affiliation has become an increasingly central tenet of individual identity. In 1994, Congress also passed the assault weapons ban, which would prove to be the last major piece of federal legislation restricting gun possession.

Ever since then, the issue of gun violence and how to solve it — as with almost every political issue — has mapped neatly across the increasingly polarized political divide. Thanks in large part to interest groups like the National Rifle Association and the Federalist Society, the mainstream conservative pro-gun position has become absolutist and intolerant of any reform. As former Republican congressional representative Scott Rigell — who faced fierce criticism after he broke ranks to try to pass bipartisan gun control legislation after Sandy Hook — recently told BuzzFeed News, “Content doesn’t matter; if it’s gun-related, they will oppose it.”

But it wasn’t always this way. In fact, in the long history of gun politics in this country, a history that dates back centuries, this pattern of partisanship and inaction is a relatively recent development. Not long ago, there were conservatives in this country who accepted, and even supported, legislation to restrict gun use and ownership — as did the NRA.
<End>


The article then talks about some pending gun control legislation, in 1963, shortly after President Kennedy's assassination, to which CT's Sen. Thomas Dodd, proposed the adding of a banning of all mail order purchases of guns (as this is the manner in which Oswald had purchased his fateful rifle).

<Snip>
The executive vice president of the NRA at the time, Franklin Orth, testified about the bill to Congress, and in his testimony praised the mail order prohibition: “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” The NRA endorsed that gun control bill, which wasn’t out of step with the group’s established role as an authority on safe and responsible firearm practices; the NRA had helped draft gun control legislation in the past, including the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act.

In 1968, after years of debate, a later iteration of Dodd’s bill passed in the House of Representatives 305–118, with 157 Democrats and 147 Republicans voting in favor. It then passed in the Senate with support from 39 Democrats and 31 Republicans — in other words, with a level of bipartisan support that’s pretty much unimaginable for any gun control bill today.
<End>


This is where the article starts turning back to a California bill, to ban anyone from carrying a loaded gun, in public, which the Black Panthers, who carried guns, did not like.

<Snip>
The 1967 California bill and the Black Panthers’ protest of it are a significant part of that history, and worth revisiting because they remind us that the debate around how to address gun violence has not always been nearly as partisan, or entrenched, as it is today. And, as with so many other issues in American politics, the debate has actually been in large part about race.

The image of who carries guns in the popular imagination has changed since 1967. And as the faces of those advocating for and carrying assault weapons have become whiter and more conservative — and as the Second Amendment has become less often invoked in the context of racial justice and collective self-defense and more often in the context of hunting and individual self-defense — the politics of gun control have shifted drastically.

What might look today like a principled, uncompromising stance that the NRA and the modern-day conservative movement have taken on gun rights is far less long-standing than it seems. Just over 50 years ago, it was sacrificed in the name of a higher political priority: undercutting radical advocates of racial justice whose insistence on exercising their constitutional rights threatened white Americans’ political and social dominance in a way that white conservatives couldn’t accept....
<End>


Now here is the hypocrisy test, for those wholehearted 2nd Amendment advocates, among us: do you support the enthusiasm that the Black Panthers had for arming the black community, in self defense against the police? Would you support similar practices, and aspirations, were they to re-emerge today?

<Snip>
...Arguably most consequentially, the platform also included this statement: “We believe we can end police brutality in our Black community by organizing Black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our Black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives us the right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black people should arm themselves for self-defense.”

The Panthers told recruits that “the gun is the only thing that will free us — gain us our liberation.” Just a few years earlier, Malcolm X had appeared in an iconic 1964 photo in Ebony magazine posing with a rifle, creating a striking visual representation of his “by any means necessary” strategy of fighting for racial justice.

Newton and other party members took advantage of California’s permissive open carry laws to directly confront law enforcement, “policing the police.” Part public defenders and part security patrol, party members listened to Oakland police frequencies on short-wave radio and, when they heard officers preparing to make an arrest, rushed to the scene with law books and loaded guns. The altercations never turned violent but provided some semblance of protection — legal and physical — for those interacting with police.
<End>


The motivation for this 1967 California law, was to weaken the Black Panthers, and it was proposed by Republican Don Milford. It was also supported by the NRA. This is a very interesting and informative article, but I have already Snipped a lot of it, so I will recommend that all read it, and I won't give any more of the rest away... except one more quick quote--

<Snip>

The state’s governor at the time was Ronald Reagan, who took a public stance in favor of Mulford’s bill. In fact, he praised gun control generally, telling reporters that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and calling gun possession a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of goodwill.” He soon signed the Mulford Act into law, and it’s still in effect in California today...


It’s not all that hard to imagine that Reagan — whose voice can be heard on a tape released last week calling black people “monkeys” who are “still uncomfortable wearing shoes” — might have categorized the Black Panther Party members as “thugs and criminals,” rather than “law abiding citizens.” And in that sense, what might seem like a surprising about-face among conservative politicians, from supporting gun control to opposing it, is actually consistent. It was always about who was using the guns...
<End>


The article, briefly, goes much further back, to the aftermath of the Civil War, in the 1860s, before returning to today. Like I said: a recommended read.

 

Democrats support it when black panthers do it…the hypocrisy is astounding. And pretending conservatives have ever supported gun control in any way is astoundingly incorrect. But Dems will believe anything they want in order to project their hypocrisy.

 

The world is watching, because The United States is the Worlds Piggie Bank and everyone has it's hand out begging for our Tax dollars, I don't see Australia doing **** for The Ukraine compared to what The United States has done, Plus! most of Europe (NATO) looks to The United States to pay for its security.

 

And your proof is…….

 

Hypocrisy clause.

 

I have always encouraged everyone to vote no matter what political party affiliation or their circumstances in life. As long as they meet the two basic requirements of a US citizen and a valid ID.

 

Are you just tossing the above out to see if it sticks or do you have definitive proof that Trump supporters have or will intimidate voters into not voting?

The O/P indicates that they are watching for ballot box stuffing. Why do you assume otherwise?

 

I said nothing about their party affiliation or "circumstance of life" whatever tthat is supposed to mean I said let's not encourage the dumb and lazy ones to do so.

Why is it in the best interest of our country and elected governments to do so?

 

The people who are ok with it now were clutching their pearls when the Black Panthers did it, and are calling democrats hypocrites.

Newsflash: You are all hypocrites.

 

You misspelled "Act on their lunatic fantasies to intimidate voters because they were incapable of basic critical thought."

 

I think this is an emotional reaction rather than a rational one. Which specific law do you believe they're violating? Because here's what the article says:

 

How so? Do you have an evidence based citation for your inference?

 

Citation? AZ law what?

 

You misspelled "I support election fraud allowing ballot stuffing from Democrats"..... And you completely left out the "drat, foiled again"...

 

I'll love to hear you explain how these LARPers are going to supposedly stop such "fraud," but I've waited a couple of years now for you guys to support your fraud claims and you failed at that, so I guess I'll be waiting some more. But, hey, keep admitting that you value memes more than facts.

 

So, citing the actual AZ law should be quite simple for you...... Funny, you brought up your propaganda wing the Q up again... LOL

 

I do not remember them carrying ar-15's at polling place, let's hope neither side tries to intimidate voters - should be a felony - regardless of party or skin color

that said, I did see the 2008 case as voter intimidation, due to the stick, even without guns, stay away from the polling places

 

Do you consider yourself a Hypocrite?

 

I am often a hypocrite, but not on this.

No one should be standing around a ballot box with a gun.

 

You said "dumb and lazy ones" Blues. That is part of the broader picture called "circumstances in life." That can be by choice or not. Circumstances in life can prevent a person from joining the military no matter how much they want to because they are a Type 1 diabetic. It can also include people not having the opportunity to get an education in one form or another or by the choices they made in their past. Lazy is a broad term too.

 

This isn’t an American forum.
Look at the banner at the top.

How pathetic and sad of ideology must one have to believe it should be exempt from valid criticism due to the citizenship of the poster?

It would be similar to asking you isn’t there a white nationalist forum you could participate in somewhere?

 

Qnon has conspiracy theories on those drop boxes and mail in ballots. They include actors dropping off "fake ballots" as part of the "rigged election." Why else do you tink there are people armed at these places trying to intimidate any and every drop box location in certain areas?

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/...-using-various-tactics-manipulate-us-election