Zone1 The Second Amendment for Thee, Not for Me — by Shari Dunn

[White 6]

For Army pilots it isn't your primary, unless your longarm gets destroyed in the crash, and even if you are driving, stopping tends to work better than a rolling gunfight, and if you cannot stop because you don't want to get pinned down, then you better keep worrying about driving.

However, you eventually indicated there was a primary firearm in the back seat although it is usually between the seats or between the door and the seat (unless there is actually a carrier attached to the dash), and your handgun is still secondary.

Dude, I am from so far back, I come from the days of jeeps and specifically gun jeeps, pretty much like Rat Patrol. I have seen chopper pilots with chest carry service pistols, but also did personal affects and equipment on a chopper pilot, and his recovered, partially melted M-4, and that was this century.

Still, as I was just reminded, this is The Second Amendment for Thee, Not for Me — by Shari Dunn thread, so I will not be continuing the conversation, we have been exchanging on.
Apologies, to the OP.

 

[Bitterhook]

Dude, I am from so far back, I come from the days of jeeps and specifically gun jeeps, pretty much like Rat Patrol. I have seen chopper pilots with chest carry service pistols, but also did personal affects and equipment on a chopper pilot, and his recovered, partially melted M-4, and that was this century.

Still, as I was just reminded, this is The Second Amendment for Thee, Not for Me — by Shari Dunn thread, so I will not be continuing the conversation, we have been exchanging on.
Apologies, to the OP.

That's cool, but I kind of dismissed the OP already in a comment as hogwash, and because most appropriately it could be considered a little outdated.


Edit:
Also, for historical reference, Army pilots started carrying the M-4 (or alternates) as well as their service handgun, in 1994 shortly after the incident in Somalia in 1993 the book (and subsequent movie) Blackhawk Down are based on.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Every time I read one of Ms. Dunn’s publications, I immediately think, “This is her best piece yet.” And every time, she proves me wrong. I love the way she hits upon so many critical elements within the subject matter and ties them all together with clarity and force.

It wasn’t until I first contemplated undergoing firearms training and getting licensed to carry myself that I learned gun control in America was originally implemented specifically to prevent Black people from taking up arms—particularly against the Klan—shortly after the Civil War. I was introduced to this history by those who supported my efforts to become armed as a means of protecting myself. One of the first resources shared with me was The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton Cramer.

Only more recently did I begin to grasp the deeper implications of that history—not just how control over certain groups was enacted, but why. The motive behind the restriction of rights becomes crystal clear when viewed through the lens of fear. The fear of what full citizenship for Black Americans would mean—particularly the right to bear arms—was so profound that the Supreme Court gave it voice in one of the most infamously racist rulings in U.S. history: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).

The Court ruled that Black people were not citizens and therefore not entitled to constitutional protections. Chief Justice Roger Taney laid bare the real concern. If Black people were to be considered citizens, then:



Need more be said?

The Second Amendment for Thee, Not for Me – by Shari Dunn

The Second Amendment cannot and does not protect one from engaging in foolish behavior.

Nor does the First. The Constitution governs the behavior of government toward you, not you toward the government.

That's the thing people are missing here.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

1857?

Uh huh, before slavery was abolished Taney was explaining why white society didn't want Black people to have the same U.S. Constitutional protections that they did:

Expanded Timeline of Key Civil Rights Events in U.S. History​

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford – 1857
   Declared African Americans were not U.S. citizens and Congress could not ban slavery in the territories.
2. End of the Civil War – April 9, 1865
   Confederate surrender at Appomattox Court House.
3. 13th Amendment – Ratified December 6, 1865
   Abolished slavery in the United States.
4. 14th Amendment – Ratified July 9, 1868
   Granted citizenship and equal protection under the law.
5. 15th Amendment – Ratified February 3, 1870
   Gave Black men the right to vote by prohibiting voting discrimination based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
6. Plessy v. Ferguson – 1896
   Legalized segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.
7. 19th Amendment (Women’s Suffrage) – Ratified August 18, 1920
   Gave women the right to vote in the U.S.
8. Brown v. Board of Education – 1954
   Overturned Plessy, ruling segregation in public schools unconstitutional.
9. Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Signed July 2, 1964
   Banned segregation in public places and outlawed employment discrimination.
10. Voting Rights Act of 1965 – Signed August 6, 1965
    Prohibited racial discrimination in voting. It enforced the 15th Amendment and banned literacy tests and other discriminatory practices.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Second amendment had nothing to do with Pretti---he obstructed law enforcement--he was also carrying. Only one of those facts had to do with his demise. Stay out of law enforcement's face when they are performing their duties and you won't have a problem.

Except they (law enforcement) shot and killed Philando Castile even though he was not "in their face". Castile was lawfully carrying via a concealed carry permit and had informed the officer of such as required/recommended. He was shot & killed anyway because when he attempted to comply with the officer's command to retrieve his license, registration & insurance that the officer had just requested, the officer, many of whom are pre-disposed to fear/think the worse of Black people, panicked, thought he was reaching for his weapon instead of the documentation he had just requested, and shot & killed him.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It is interesting how awesome things tend to turn out when one is conscious of their surroundings and who they share them with.

Keeping both hands on the steering wheel while telling even a Texas State Trooper you have a loaded firearm in the vehicle, and asking him what he would like for you to do, will generally lead to him asking you to slowly get out of the vehicle while he retrieves it, unloads it, clears the breech, before putting the bullet back in the mag and asking you to open the trunk so he can put the mag in there, and then handing you the firearm back.

However, that isn't even necessary anymore since Texas now honors all CAC permits from other states.

That seems like a lot of unnecessary firearm handling to me, that could potentially result in an unintended discharge. Has that ever occurred?

 

[Bitterhook]

That seems like a lot of unnecessary firearm handling to me, that could potentially result in an unintended discharge. Has that ever occurred?

Good thing it isn't up to you then, and anyone in that comment handling a firearm was well trained.

Personally, I have never had an accidental discharge of a firearm in my possession.
Partly because I don't have any cheap firearms, and partly because they aren't toys, they are loaded, and you can never shove a round back down the barrel once it is on the way.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Dude, I am from so far back, I come from the days of jeeps and specifically gun jeeps, pretty much like Rat Patrol. I have seen chopper pilots with chest carry service pistols, but also did personal affects and equipment on a chopper pilot, and his recovered, partially melted M-4, and that was this century.

Still, as I was just reminded, this is The Second Amendment for Thee, Not for Me — by Shari Dunn thread, so I will not be continuing the conversation, we have been exchanging on.
Apologies, to the OP.

No worries, I used to spend time on Packing.org so this was kind of nice

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Good thing it isn't up to you then, and anyone in that comment handling a firearm was well trained.

Personally, I have never had an accidental discharge of a firearm in my possession.
Partly because I don't have any cheap firearms, and partly because they aren't toys, they are loaded, and you can never shove a round back down the barrel once it is on the way.

I don't live in Texas so unless and until I do, no worries. Wait, are you actually trying to lecture me on safe firearm handling?

1. Accidental Discharge During Inspection/Handling

• A Mesquite (TX) police officer accidentally discharged his service weapon while inspecting it at a high school, with no injuries reported.

2. Accidental Discharge Leading to Death

• In December 2024, a San Antonio police officer died after his service weapon accidentally discharged while he was getting out of his patrol car ahead of a training exercise.

3. Concerns Around Specific Service Weapons

• Several Texas officers, including Houston PD officers, have reported that their SIG Sauer P320 pistols discharged unexpectedly — including a reported incident in January 2025 where an officer was shot in the leg while directing traffic — leading HPD to require officers to switch service guns due to safety concerns.

Broader Context​

• No single public Texas database categorizes unintentional discharges by patrol officers in isolation; these would be part of use‑of‑force or officer‑involved shooting reports.
• Many law enforcement agencies track accidental discharges internally as a training and safety metric, but these internal records are generally not publicly disclosed in aggregated form.
• Nationally, experts note there’s no central requirement for police departments to report all unintended discharges to any federal agency, so comprehensive data is limited even beyond Texas.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The Second Amendment cannot and does not protect one from engaging in foolish behavior.

Nor does the First. The Constitution governs the behavior of government toward you, not you toward the government.

That's the thing people are missing here.

Can you be more specific? I have no idea of what you're referring to, not your third paragraph, not your second paragraph and not even the first.

 

[Bitterhook]

I don't live in Texas so unless and until I do, no worries.

And are you actually trying to lecture me on safe firearm handling?

I don't live in Texas either (and my not living there is specifically what the comment referred to), and I am not lecturing you at all, just simply the facts of the matter whether or not you want to be offended, and to tell you the truth that wouldn't be a drop in the bucket if I intended to lecture someone on firearm safety.

 

[Concerned American]

Except they (law enforcement) shot and killed Philando Castile even though he was not "in their face". Castile was lawfully carrying via a concealed carry permit and had informed the officer of such as required/recommended. He was shot & killed anyway because when he attempted to comply with the officer's command to retrieve his license, registration & insurance that the officer had just requested, the officer, many of whom are pre-disposed to fear/think the worse of Black people, panicked, thought he was reaching for his weapon instead of the documentation he had just requested, and shot & killed him.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, in your mind anything that happened to a minority was racism. There have been as many or more bad shootings involving white people as there have been minorities. You really need to work on your racism obsession. To quote Morgan Freeman, "If you want to get rid of racism, QUIT TALKING ABOUT IT." SMH.

 

[Bitterhook]

Except they (law enforcement) shot and killed Philando Castile even though he was not "in their face". Castile was lawfully carrying via a concealed carry permit and had informed the officer of such as required/recommended. He was shot & killed anyway because when he attempted to comply with the officer's command to retrieve his license, registration & insurance that the officer had just requested, the officer, many of whom are pre-disposed to fear/think the worse of Black people, panicked, thought he was reaching for his weapon instead of the documentation he had just requested, and shot & killed him.

What excuse would you make for Officer Melvina Bogard who shot the unarmed Ariel Roman, although he had been pepper sprayed and resisted arrest, but was running away when she chased him down and killed him?

Of course it is kind of rhetorical, because I am of the firm belief that sometimes there is a bad apple in the barrel regardless of ethnicity.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, in your mind anything that happened to a minority was racism. There have been as many or more bad shootings involving white people as there have been minorities. You really need to work on your racism obsession. To quote Morgan Freeman, "If you want to get rid of racism, QUIT TALKING ABOUT IT." SMH.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? You know nothing about me and consistently draw the wrong conclusions yet you expect me to take you seriously?

Why don't you show me what either I or Ms. Dunn has stated that is incorrect. Not what you your opinion is, what is factually wrong or inaccurate.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What excuse would you make for Officer Melvina Bogard who shot the unarmed Ariel Roman, although he had been pepper sprayed and resisted arrest, but was running away when she chased him down and killed him?

Of course it is kind of rhetorical, because I am of the firm belief that sometimes there is a bad apple in the barrel regardless of ethnicity.

I'm not familiar with this incident but if the agent shot him while he was attempting to flee then I would say the same thing about it as I would anyone else. Our government is not allowed to LAWFULLY shoot & kill people for merely fleeing with very few exceptions.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Uh huh, before slavery was abolished Taney was explaining why white society didn't want Black people to have the same U.S. Constitutional protections that they did:

Expanded Timeline of Key Civil Rights Events in U.S. History​

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford – 1857
   Declared African Americans were not U.S. citizens and Congress could not ban slavery in the territories.
2. End of the Civil War – April 9, 1865
   Confederate surrender at Appomattox Court House.
3. 13th Amendment – Ratified December 6, 1865
   Abolished slavery in the United States.
4. 14th Amendment – Ratified July 9, 1868
   Granted citizenship and equal protection under the law.
5. 15th Amendment – Ratified February 3, 1870
   Gave Black men the right to vote by prohibiting voting discrimination based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
6. Plessy v. Ferguson – 1896
   Legalized segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.
7. 19th Amendment (Women’s Suffrage) – Ratified August 18, 1920
   Gave women the right to vote in the U.S.
8. Brown v. Board of Education – 1954
   Overturned Plessy, ruling segregation in public schools unconstitutional.
9. Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Signed July 2, 1964
   Banned segregation in public places and outlawed employment discrimination.
10. Voting Rights Act of 1965 – Signed August 6, 1965
    Prohibited racial discrimination in voting. It enforced the 15th Amendment and banned literacy tests and other discriminatory practices.

1965?

 

[Bitterhook]

I'm not familiar with this incident but if the agent shot him while he was attempting to flee then I would say the same thing about it as I would anyone else. Our government is not allowed to LAWFULLY shoot & kill people for merely fleeing with very few exceptions.

Well, that's okay, and there just might be a reason you don't know anything about a black female police officer in Chicago shooting an unarmed white man four years after Philando Castile was shot, but like I said it was rhetorical in the first place because I really don't think being a shitty cop requires the ethnicity of the assailant or the victim to be one thing or another.

 

[PeterPilot]

Concerned American

Concerned but credulous and easily led.

 

[Concerned American]

Concerned American

Concerned but credulous and easily led.

LMAO, if that ^^ means I don't obstruct law enforcement in the performance of their duties. Yup, guilty.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Except they (law enforcement) shot and killed Philando Castile even though he was not "in their face". Castile was lawfully carrying via a concealed carry permit and had informed the officer of such as required/recommended. He was shot & killed anyway because when he attempted to comply with the officer's command to retrieve his license, registration & insurance that the officer had just requested, the officer, many of whom are pre-disposed to fear/think the worse of Black people, panicked, thought he was reaching for his weapon instead of the documentation he had just requested, and shot & killed him.

Concerned American

Labeling a well-supported comment as “Fake News” is a de facto concession—an admission that you have no rebuttal. It’s not a counterargument; it’s intellectual surrender.

Philando Castile’s killing by a Minneapolis PD officer is a matter of public record. The officer, Jeronimo Yanez, was criminally charged. Trial transcripts, dashcam footage, and investigative records confirm that Castile did precisely what the officer instructed—informing him of his permit and attempting to retrieve documentation. Despite this, Yanez fired seven shots, killing Castile in front of his partner and her daughter. These are facts, not opinions, and certainly not “fake news.”

Your repeated tactic of dismissing facts as “Fake News” is not just dishonest—it’s lazy. You posture as someone more informed than others in your echo chamber, but your responses reveal otherwise.

The fact that you consistently react in the childish manner of labeling my comments as "Fake News" normally would cause you to lose any credibility you had, except you never had any to begin with when it comes to me. And it's not because I dislike you, nor just because I dislike you following me around and challenging everything I post just to be contrary, it's instead because you're ignorant on a multitude of topics yet believe yourself to be knowledgeable and know more than most others, at least of a certain demographic. You proved this when you quoted a millionaire celebrity as someone Black people should listen to and emulate, yet you even misquoted or took out of context what Mogan Freeman stated.

When you are given the opportunity to debate here on the message board in good faith, any topics of disagreement, you do exactly what you've done here, simply label my comments as 'Fake News' and consider that the end of it.

While you're certainly entitled to your own opinion(s), no matter how erroneous they may be, you are not qualified to render an assessment as to whether or not racial animus played a part in any of these tragic events. But more importantly, you are eminently unqualified to determine if what the average Black person states as racial animus being directed towards them is true or not. You're simply not equipped -- not with the knowledge, not with the education or experience that others have.

Similar to Occam’s Razor, when all other explanations are removed, what remains must be the truth—even when the topic is racism. The courts have acknowledged this:

“If the employer’s stated reason is shown to be false, the jury is permitted to infer that discrimination was the real reason.”
— Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000)

So you want us to believe you know better than SCOTUS?