Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

It is, new chapters have been started in a few states now

32

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

I mean like have they been interacting with ice at all? And is there somewhere to read abt this?

5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 3w

Can’t link 🔗 it in comments but google “Philadelphia chapter of Black Panther Party provides support amid tension between public and ICE”

13

Anonymous OP 3w

I’m dumb asf just saw you already posted the screenshot below 💀 thx 🙏

5

Anonymous #4 3w

It’s never been about exercising your 2nd amendment rights, it’s been about controlling who does exercise it

37

Anonymous OP 3w

you can post the link and ppl can screenshot and then copy the text that way

7

Anonymous #7 3w

The Black Panthers were never a Black Nationalist movement

25

Anonymous #7 3w

“We’re not gonna fight racism with racism, we’re gonna fight it with solidarity” —Fred Hampton

32

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Yes it was dude, you are literally fucking brain dead, how are you ALWAYS WRONG https://archive.org/details/upagainstwallvio00aust

-2

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Fred fucking Hampton did not found the Black Panthers you idiot

-6

Anonymous #7 3w

I never said that he did, dipshit

16

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

THEN WHY ARE YOU QUOTING ONE DUDE WHO GOT MURKED AS THE MAIN GOALS OF THE PARTY THAT HE DIDNT EVEN CREATE

-2

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Both Huey Newton and Bobby Seale were inspired by Malcolm X’s black nationalism and left the AAA to found their own party because it wasn’t ethnonationalistic enough

0

Anonymous #7 3w

Is there a page # you’d like me to reference here?

6

Anonymous #5 3w

https://thegrio.com/2026/01/15/philadelphia-chapter-of-black-panther-party-provides-support-amid-tension-between-public-and-ice/

5

Anonymous OP 3w

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/philadelphia-chapter-black-panther-party-164000656.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJUt8qkXG5KC9FH-XXgOeASdjusFAFTN19MShSxSXDvCqjvG7UghnVksoP9iMiWJeZN0NW8lFLJMUTHxfGBOGFScKkfWsZBTQ9NUZCfWWRtU5PwHQRNHIkpq_Nkh0R1JjFj9NtkOATl8MEUkVXj5oR8xZgvnEsECINrHlRgs0gpY

5

Anonymous #7 3w

The BPP allowed white membership even. And all do that aside. It is ridiculous to equate Black nationalism to white nationalism. One is a reaction to centuries of colonialism and oppression, the other seeks to maintain those systems. It is a dishonest comparison

8

Anonymous #8 3w

🫵😂 this guy thinks murderous wannabe-cop-vigilantes who travel dozens of miles to seek out armed conflict are morally superior to non-violent men open carrying in their own communities

30

Anonymous #5 3w

Kyle wasn’t violent until he was attacked. Good try tho

-10

Anonymous #8 3w

traveling dozens of miles for 4 hours with an assault rifle to an area with tension and civil unrest to provide "protection" when that is neither your job nor your jurisdiction nor your community is 1000% violent. he is a violent agitator

28

Anonymous #5 3w

You are just trying to make justifications as to why it’s ok for them to do it while Kyle can’t. Last time I checked, it’s still America.

-9

Anonymous #8 3w

"do it" do what exactly? open carry? shoot people? be clear

20

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Black nationalism was started by racist white people because they didn’t want slavery but they also didn’t want servile insurrection or race war so they said “give them land in Africa and get them out of America” so the Black Panthers allowing whites doesn’t really disprove their ethnonationalism. Your comment also proves my point that you think ethnonationalism is only okay for certain ethnicities, rather than wrong and oppressive in every instance. You are a hypocrite and a buffoon.

-4

Anonymous #3 3w

It was one of the first gun laws and guess what lol it was never about public safety it was always about control.

25

Anonymous #4 3w

This is false.

-4

Anonymous #5 3w

“Assault Rifle”

6

Anonymous #5 3w

Both of them can do it they both have legal open carry. And Kyle was not in a state where you have the duty to retreat, but it was not a stand your ground state. Both activities are protected by the bill of rights. Not just the person you like more. These are not privileges they are rights.

4

Anonymous #6 3w

Bruen (2022) held that a gun law is constitutional only if it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. What it replaced: Courts previously used a two-step, interest-balancing test that weighed public safety against individual rights. Bruen rejected that approach entirely—no means-end scrutiny.

2

Anonymous #6 3w

When defending a gun law, the government must show The Second Amendment covers the conduct, and The law is supported by a historical analogue from the Founding era or early 19th century. If no historical analogue exists, the law is unconstitutional.

-3

Anonymous #3 3w

Do you think this counts as a historical tradition of firearm regulation?

1

Anonymous #9 3w

historically, this is correct.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

That may be true but the Minnesota government doesn’t like anyone exercising their rights so those guys better have an open carry permit otherwise that’s a felony

0

Anonymous #9 3w

wasn’t Kyle like 17y/o and couldn’t have legally purchased that firearm even if he wanted to? so like.. therefore in possession of a firearm, in another state from his residence, that he wouldn’t otherwise be able to legally obtain?

7

Anonymous #11 3w

Not in the same way it was now they only want the police and the politicians security to have guns.

1

Anonymous #9 3w

Minnesota does not have permitless open carry so those fellas better have permits otherwise that’s a felony

0

Anonymous #11 3w

He was from IL as well which has a FOID law for further (unconstitutional) restrictions purchasing firearms. However, I believe the justification is that he was under Wisconsin laws, and those state that teenagers can be allowed to carry weapons under the supervision of adults, and initially, he was under their supervision, until the chaos started. Believe me, if there was an issue with him carrying that rifle, it would’ve been brought up in trial.

-1

Anonymous #9 3w

yeah i told #8 to be clear because open carry is fine - but that's not all kyle did. i don't like them or him cuz idk any of them. i'm stating the obvious that kyle (a person who traveled for 4 hours with a gun to an area with civil unrest) is morally inferior to non-violent men exercising their 2nd amendment rights in their own community

5

Anonymous #7 3w

it had nothing to do with supervision

1

Anonymous #5 3w

He did not travel for four hours? I know both areas in which he lived and I lived a few miles from where this took place. He was from just over the border north of Chicago, even more north than Gurnee, and Kenosha is like the first town you get into when you cross the border on I-94. He was so close that he lived in IL and worked in WI *as a teenager*, so you know the commute has to be small. That’s how even got into the situation in the first place- he was defending his workplace, supposedly.

-3

Anonymous #5 3w

Like I just looked up the distance from his town to Kenosha and it is about 20 miles. 33 km. Not far

-2

Anonymous #7 3w

Defending your job is the lamest shit ever. “Oh no, my boss is gonna be sad!” Get real.

0

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Oh my fucking god do you have a life at all outside of being loud and stupid? You show up on every single post saying moronic bullshit. If his workplace got broken into or god forbid burnt down, he could’ve been out of a job. He had already lost one job during the pandemic in his home county. You don’t actually care about the working class at all.

-1

Anonymous #7 3w

i didn't mean he traveled from A to B in four hours. it's like 30 minutes away. he went to kenosha and stayed overnight the day before he went out murdering. he was roaming *around* for several hours

4

Anonymous #7 3w

also it was NOT his workplace. he did not work there

6

Anonymous #5 3w

Well he wouldn’t have done a good job protecting the local businesses in the area if he drove up there and stayed for 5 minutes? My issue with it is that he’s a 17 year old and his parents were negligent by letting him do that, and THEY should’ve been the ones charged. However, he was a minor and isn’t the left the same people who say “a 22 year old college graduate can’t consent to a 26 year old because their brain isn’t as developed” like he did not have the proper mental capacity

-1

Anonymous #7 3w

what the actual fuck are you talking about kid? you're losing the thread he was old enough to drive himself down there with an AR to provide what he thought were paid protection services to a business. wisconsin law does not charge 17 year olds as minors. him AND his parents should be behind bars

0

Anonymous #5 3w

He was not under the assumption that he would be paid and he was in IL when he made the decision to go there, and IL would charge him as a minor. If the crime was showing up he should’ve been charged in IL because the majority of that trip AND the decision were on the IL side

-1