Let me give you a personal example from just yesterday that shows how the mindset of some people, due to facts and fairly recent history, just have to be different from the mindset of people like Lohner.

It was hot yesterday. I was home, working on my laptop all day and I was sweating. I decided to go out and run to the store to pick up some trash bags so we could do some cleaning but before I went I washed myself up - didn't feel like a shower for such a quick trip - changed my t-shirt and headed out. I'm about 5 steps outside the door and my mom comes after me...

"Where are you going smelling like that?"

"To the Store for a sec, but I just cleaned up and..."

"Well, then it's your clothes that smell.. you got this whole house stinking."

"I know, I just changed shirts and..."

"Well, you don't want to cops to smell you and think you're a bum - They'll Shoot You Down!"

In point of fact I've actually been physically assaulted by a local pan-handler not a few weeks ago - which was rare and weird because several of them are actually friends of mine who've given me things since I almost always give them spare change - and the cops came up to get them off me, so I kinda know where that local cops a) Don't tend to shoot "Bums" on sight and b) Can tell who is who when it comes to who deserves there attention and who doesn't. It didn't used to be that way in L.A., but these days are now better than those days used to me. Much. Not perfect, but better.

Now imagine what she would have thought if I had decided I wanted to go for a little stroll with her .357 stuck in my waist band. Just cuz I wanted to make people "Feel More Comfortable seeing someone armed?"

Yeah, that's not gonna happen anytime soon. End of digression.

Why is it we never hear all the open carry guys, like this kid Lohner or say Ted Nugent complain that armed people - even those who don't even have a loaded real weapon - like Crawford should have a RIGHT to walk around with a pretend loaded weapon if they feel like it?

It's not like you can make the argument that Crawford was "committing a crime" - he was Shopping. He wasn't a "Sizzurp Slurping Hoodie Teen Thug Criminal" - he was a Consumer.



But that's not how those in the store saw it.



The former Marine who called police said Crawford looked to be attempting to load the black air rifle and ignored police commands to drop the weapon. “He looked like he was going to go violently,” said Ronald Ritchie. “If he would have dropped the weapon, he could have came out with his life, but unfortunately, he didn’t.” The department’s chief, Dennis Evers, said officers Sean Williams and David Darkow acted appropriately.

"Hang on a sec girl, gotta shoot someone now..."

"Acted appropriately" they did, he "looked like he was going to go violently"? How exactly does that look when at the time he was. How many people are about to do something violent and it's like...How do you load an air-rifle when you've got a cell phone in one hand? Tuck it against your shoulder, while you fiddle with the gun? How much damage is he going to do with an unloaded air-rifle anyway? I just don't see how this level of panic and deadly force is really justified against someone whose minding his own business, shopping and holding a TOY IN HIS HANDS that he might buy should be treated.

I mean, why exactly didn't he get treated the way that these guys did?



And you would think considering how the NRA first attacked Open Carry Texas, and then apologized for calling them "Weird and Scary" claiming it was an "unauthorized" and "unapproved" post, then this below ought to be a picture that NRA Open Carry/2nd Amendmenters should absolutely LOVE! But for some reason, they really don't.The above picture I found on google, but the source page was from Pat Dollard who posted it under the title “We Gotta Do It”: Black Panthers Declare Violent “Race War” On “White Devils”, Demand “Bloodshed”

[Note: From what people have pointed out in the comments, these are not members of the U.S. "New Black Panthers" - they may not even be from this continent and may indeed by militants from Africa.]

Because clearly those guys with Guns is "Scary" and obviously "They're about to get Violent" but these guys - are not. Cuz.. I don't know, gee, don't they just look cuddly? Cuddly like Ted Bundy, the Zodiac Killer or the Boston Strangler - but still cuddly.



I just don't get it. What could it possibly be that is different about these situations? Maybe we need higher wisdom on this. Perhaps - yes - we need the Wisdom ofto help us clear all this up. Obviously our frail merely human wisdom does fail us now.

What would, when faced with a pack of brazen and proud open carriers, the Great Ronald Reagan do in response to respect our great noble traditions and preserve our precious 2nd Amendment Rights?



Yes, according to Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA School of Law and author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America." Winkler said over the weekend on NPR's "On the Media": "One of the surprising things I discovered in writing 'Gunfight' was that when the Black Panthers started carrying their guns around in Oakland, Calif., in the late 1960s, it inspired a new wave of gun control laws (audio). It was these laws that ironically sparked a backlash among rural white conservatives, who were concerned that the government was coming to get their guns next. "The NRA mimicked many of the policy positions of the Black Panthers, who viewed guns not just as a matter of protection for the home, but something you should be able to have out on the street, and also protection against a hostile government that was tyrannical and disrespectful of people's rights. . . . "

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law in 1967. Written by Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford, the legislation was the most sweeping state edict in all the country, prohibiting the more or less free carrying of firearms in public. It went along with the rest of his heavy-handed entire law-and-order agenda and inspired an avalanche of new gun laws nationwide. The purpose of the law was to disarm the Black Panthers, a radical leftist group that openly carried firearms, kept an eye out on the police, and even took their rifles to the state Capitol to protest what they decried as racist legislation.

So apparently the Black Panthers were once something the NRA felt they could emulate in the use of Open Carry to promote personal freedom and advance the cause of the 2nd Amendment. Until that all went south.. Now in theory, the goals of self-defense and keeping a watchful eye on government overreach should place people like the New Black Panther Party and say - Cliven Bundy - in common cause.

But for some reason - one single solitary issue I just can't quite put my finger on - that just doesn't seem to happen. They just can't seem to get it together.

And I wonder what that issue could possibly be. Hmmm.... Just what. is. it?

Any ideas?

Vyan

News Report Video (If it embeds)





















More from Front Paged Story on this.

A lot of good points have been brought in the comments. The Black Militant Guys are not New Black Panthers, no matter what Dollard says. It's not fair to draw a final conclusion on the events that led to Crawford's shooting, not without all the facts. But I would say that this: the "witness" who called 9-11 may have effectively "SWATted" this young man by over stating his "intent" and "violent potential" putting the cops on high alert when none was warranted, so again, it may not be fair to simply blame them for reacting to the - apparently wrong - information that they had been given.

One last point, Lohner not only refused to give his ID he also refused to put down the loaded shotgun [which was slung over his shoulder] when he was confronted by police.



