5 ms·

Do you feel the same is true about surveillance used on January 20, 2020 in Richmond, VA (2nd amendment protestors)? The one that a state of emergency was decla

Do you feel the same is true about surveillance used on January 20, 2020 in Richmond, VA (2nd amendment protestors)? The one that a state of emergency was declared for it in advance of the event.

charlesu 6y ago
That was a gun rally. A gathering of people with literal killing machines. Seems somewhat different than a normal protest?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  People in Minneapolis are throwing rocks and setting buildings on fire. That seems a lot more worse than people holding (but not threatening to use) weapons.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    Who are you more afraid of - a dude holding a rock they might throw or a dude holding a gun that he could possibly fire? Yeah, the gun. It is more likely to hurt you. It doesn't matter if folks are threatening to use it or not. The gun can, in general, do more bodily harm. Just because folks didn't use them doesn't mean it isn't a threat. Rocks at least have more purpose than to put holes in things - guns are there to kill other things even when used responsibly. Gun ranges are simply training for this.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I mean, I'm more afraid of the dudes who are throwing rocks, not merely holding them.
    - giardini 6y ago
      Broken_Hippo says>"Rocks at least have more purpose than to put holes in things - guns are there to kill other things even when used responsibly. " - Broken Hippo apparently hasn't been hit by a rock recently!8-) I joke, but... We're speaking of men holding rocks. You underestimate the effectiveness of rocks as weapons. Every man knows how to use a rock as a weapon and almost everyone has thrown a rock or pounded something with a rock. You needn't throw a rock to kill/harm someone; it's likely faster and easier if you keep the rock in your hand. Rocks have been used as weapons since before prehistoric times. Rocks have possibly been instruments of death for more of our ancestors than have bullets.
    - hleach 6y ago
      I don't believe it is that rational. It's an ideological assessment, not a risk assessment. If you agree with the people holding the guns, you feel safer with them. If you agree with the people holding the rock, you feel safer with them. It doesn't matter what they are holding.
- neverartful 6y ago
  Not really. Any large gathering of angry people is dangerous (and especially capable of killing). No?
  - sophacles 6y ago
    I think this is a good point to throw out a reminder: danger is not binary. If it were binary all of these activities would be equivalent: * taking a nap * eating a meal * riding a bicycle * playing Russian roulette
    - neverartful 6y ago
      What do any of these have to do with a large group of angry people?
  - charlesu 6y ago
    It’s a lot easier to kill with a gun than without a gun.
    - neverartful 6y ago
      Indeed it is! However, in the case of the Richmond, VA rally there was no violence. And the people that participated in the rally did so in accordance with the law.
- wavepruner 6y ago
  I've seen multiple videos now from the recent riots of people being beaten either to death, or near death. I didn't see anything like that from the 2A protests.
kunai 6y ago
I personally feel the same is true for those protesters as well. We all have the right to protest for Constitutional rights and the right to do so free of invasive surveillance measures. As far as I know the VA protesters were not Nazis or other individuals with violent ideologies, they were just normal gun owners. Most of the MPLS protesters are also normal people fed up with the lack of attention given to the plight of minorities and the poor in the United States. So yeah, no false equivalence/hypocrisy here from me.
newacct583 6y ago
Were the same or similar tools used in Richmond? I can't find any coverage of that specifically. I mean, I'm sure someone had a CCTV turned on the guys, but surely you'd agree that the Richmond protest was less surveilled and less attended by law enforcement. Broadly, I think the fact that 2A protests tend to be met with gentle indifference by law enforcement instead of the mass surveillance and control techniques used against civil rights folks rather reinforces the upthread point, no?
- giardini 6y ago
  2A attendees who are carrying firearms are usually licensed, which means they aren't felons and have clean background records. In most states training and licensing is required to carry short firearms (pistols, revolvers). Licensed firearms owners are an unusually safe and cautious group of people.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    What about the three guys arrested prior to that very 2A protest in Richmond? What about the nuts in Malheur? Hell, the second worst terrorist attack in the history of the country was carried out by an avowed gun rights advocate (though not, of course, with a gun). I think if you go look this up, you'll find that these people are not, in fact, particularly peaceful as protestors go. They're simply ignored by the police in ways that the dreadlocked hippies are not. (I mean, sure, those are all exceptions. But then most of the people in Minneapolis weren't burning anything down either. Have you ever been to a left-wing march? This isn't a demographic known for temper.)
    - neverartful 6y ago
      "you'll find that these people are not, in fact, particularly peaceful as protestors go" Painting with a mighty broad brush. So if YOU have a gun that automatically makes you a non-peaceful individual? "Have you ever been to a left-wing march? This isn't a demographic known for temper." Are you serious? Ever hear of Antifa?
  - 6y ago
sgnelson 6y ago
I think to an extent, that was his point. When laws like this are enacted, they are targeted at a perceived enemy or class. And yet inevitably they are turned elsewhere, finally targeting everyone.

Do you feel the same is true about surveillance used on January 20, 2020 in Richmond, VA (2nd amendment protestors)? The one that a state of emergency was declared for it in advance of the event.

charlesu 6y ago

That was a gun rally. A gathering of people with literal killing machines. Seems somewhat different than a normal protest?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
People in Minneapolis are throwing rocks and setting buildings on fire. That seems a lot more worse than people holding (but not threatening to use) weapons.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  Who are you more afraid of - a dude holding a rock they might throw or a dude holding a gun that he could possibly fire? Yeah, the gun. It is more likely to hurt you. It doesn't matter if folks are threatening to use it or not. The gun can, in general, do more bodily harm. Just because folks didn't use them doesn't mean it isn't a threat. Rocks at least have more purpose than to put holes in things - guns are there to kill other things even when used responsibly. Gun ranges are simply training for this.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I mean, I'm more afraid of the dudes who are throwing rocks, not merely holding them.
  - giardini 6y ago
    Broken_Hippo says>"Rocks at least have more purpose than to put holes in things - guns are there to kill other things even when used responsibly. " - Broken Hippo apparently hasn't been hit by a rock recently!8-) I joke, but... We're speaking of men holding rocks. You underestimate the effectiveness of rocks as weapons. Every man knows how to use a rock as a weapon and almost everyone has thrown a rock or pounded something with a rock. You needn't throw a rock to kill/harm someone; it's likely faster and easier if you keep the rock in your hand. Rocks have been used as weapons since before prehistoric times. Rocks have possibly been instruments of death for more of our ancestors than have bullets.
  - hleach 6y ago
    I don't believe it is that rational. It's an ideological assessment, not a risk assessment. If you agree with the people holding the guns, you feel safer with them. If you agree with the people holding the rock, you feel safer with them. It doesn't matter what they are holding.
neverartful 6y ago
Not really. Any large gathering of angry people is dangerous (and especially capable of killing). No?
- sophacles 6y ago
  I think this is a good point to throw out a reminder: danger is not binary. If it were binary all of these activities would be equivalent: * taking a nap * eating a meal * riding a bicycle * playing Russian roulette
  - neverartful 6y ago
    What do any of these have to do with a large group of angry people?
- charlesu 6y ago
  It’s a lot easier to kill with a gun than without a gun.
  - neverartful 6y ago
    Indeed it is! However, in the case of the Richmond, VA rally there was no violence. And the people that participated in the rally did so in accordance with the law.
wavepruner 6y ago
I've seen multiple videos now from the recent riots of people being beaten either to death, or near death. I didn't see anything like that from the 2A protests.

kunai 6y ago

I personally feel the same is true for those protesters as well. We all have the right to protest for Constitutional rights and the right to do so free of invasive surveillance measures. As far as I know the VA protesters were not Nazis or other individuals with violent ideologies, they were just normal gun owners. Most of the MPLS protesters are also normal people fed up with the lack of attention given to the plight of minorities and the poor in the United States. So yeah, no false equivalence/hypocrisy here from me.

newacct583 6y ago

Were the same or similar tools used in Richmond? I can't find any coverage of that specifically. I mean, I'm sure someone had a CCTV turned on the guys, but surely you'd agree that the Richmond protest was less surveilled and less attended by law enforcement. Broadly, I think the fact that 2A protests tend to be met with gentle indifference by law enforcement instead of the mass surveillance and control techniques used against civil rights folks rather reinforces the upthread point, no?

giardini 6y ago
2A attendees who are carrying firearms are usually licensed, which means they aren't felons and have clean background records. In most states training and licensing is required to carry short firearms (pistols, revolvers). Licensed firearms owners are an unusually safe and cautious group of people.
- newacct583 6y ago
  What about the three guys arrested prior to that very 2A protest in Richmond? What about the nuts in Malheur? Hell, the second worst terrorist attack in the history of the country was carried out by an avowed gun rights advocate (though not, of course, with a gun). I think if you go look this up, you'll find that these people are not, in fact, particularly peaceful as protestors go. They're simply ignored by the police in ways that the dreadlocked hippies are not. (I mean, sure, those are all exceptions. But then most of the people in Minneapolis weren't burning anything down either. Have you ever been to a left-wing march? This isn't a demographic known for temper.)
  - neverartful 6y ago
    "you'll find that these people are not, in fact, particularly peaceful as protestors go" Painting with a mighty broad brush. So if YOU have a gun that automatically makes you a non-peaceful individual? "Have you ever been to a left-wing march? This isn't a demographic known for temper." Are you serious? Ever hear of Antifa?
- 6y ago

sgnelson 6y ago

I think to an extent, that was his point. When laws like this are enacted, they are targeted at a perceived enemy or class. And yet inevitably they are turned elsewhere, finally targeting everyone.