7 ms·

I'd rather they be counterbalanced with a well-armed citizenry, such as the "cosplaying" the article insultingly describes.

newacct583 6y ago
Do you genuinely believe that if the protestors had been armed that we wouldn't have had multiple deaths when the Park Police took the park by force? Or are you arguing that the police wouldn't have moved on the protestors at all? Knowing what happened, I think it's clearly better for all of us that the park was held by hippies with spray cans.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  He genuinely believes that "armed protests" are peaceful because his side has been involved in hundreds and they were all peaceful. So he obviously thinks the guns were the differentiator and not the privilege enjoyed by being a bunch of old white men with the support of the authorities. A number of cops were shot at during these recent protest. Our mayor was discussing this very fact this morning. Turn out, all that body armor is highly effective at stopping small arms fire. (There was no elaboration on who did the shooting though, so I guess it could have been friendly fire)
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    The black panthers had several armed marches.. and one reason why they took up arms was because they kept getting (illegally) arrested for marching unarmed. They actually sat at the California courthouse while armed.. and everything that day was peaceful. That did inspire Reagan to pass significant gun control laws though, both as Governor and President. Image: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.huffingtonpost.com%2Fasset%2F1910_1000%2F585aebc31800002d00e43f9e.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi...
  - icelancer 6y ago
    Sounds a lot like someone who does not know the history of the Black Panthers and Republicans who used to be all about gun control.
compscistd 6y ago
In this situation, the only thing a well-armed citizenry would weaponize is the false narrative that peaceful protesters are actually violent usurpers/anarchists/antifa/{$right-wing-boogieman-here}.
acdha 6y ago
That makes things a lot more volatile: you have one side with a LOT more guns, armored vehicles, and aircraft — all you need is one mistake for them to start thinking force protection and a whole bunch of people are in the crossfire. When the dust settles, a lot of people will believe this says the protests were an Antifa army even if the first shot came from the other side.
- 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
  The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to assemble for the purpose of violence.
  - x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
    The first amendment does not include the word "peaceably."
    - zucker42 6y ago
      You are incorrect.
    - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
      Edit: (Full text of the First Amendment that I could find) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't need to. Just as it doesn't need to have a provision for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. But such actions will have consequences. Congress has the authority "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;". Assembling for the purpose of violence is by definition an insurrection. So if the First Amendment said nothing of peaceably assembling, we can assume it is meant so, otherwise the Constitution would say nothing of insurrections.
      - colpabar 6y ago
beepboopbeep 6y ago
Yes, because pop-guns do anything against trillions of dollars in armor plating and advanced weaponry. Of course we never talk about what happens if the armed population goes along with the tyrannical government against the repressed as we're seeing now. This is such a mentally lazy platitude. All arming the population has done is incentivize them to use their arms against their fellow countrymen.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > Yes, because pop-guns do anything against trillions of dollars in armor plating and advanced weaponry. of course it does. bombs or tanks dont help you hold a city - it is singly people with firearms to kill the other people with firearms. its a different story if youre talking total war, but theres basically no scenario where american military would decimate american cities. > This is such a mentally lazy platitude interesting opinion considering all you have to do is look at the last two decades of failed intervention in the middle east. EDIT: additionally, many places in the middle east were occupied against their will by the terrorist forces we were there to fight. thats not the same as a citizen militia resisting occupation
- rm_-rf_ 6y ago
  Right, the superior technology and advanced weaponry was what led the US to so quickly and decisively crush insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq using dusty old AK-47s and cheap improvised explosive devices.
  - kcb 6y ago
    Now compare the casualties between the US and Afghanistan or Iraq.
    - drak0n1c 6y ago
      In a civil-war scenario, that level of destruction would be suicide for a government's economic and international survival and cause mass military desertion/defection. That counts as deterrence.
zorpner 6y ago
The "well-armed citizenry" has now had ample opportunity to rise up against tyranny, from federal agents seizing American children and placing them in cesspit prisons, to the regular murder of black Americans by police forces, to the waging of unjust wars in our name. They have done nothing. It's clear, at this point, that the culture of gun cosplay in America is inextricably tied up with white supremacy, and must itself also be dismantled.
ColanR 6y ago
Everyone replying to you don't seem to realize that some of these protests have involved 'well armed citizenry' already, and their doomsday predictions of the result haven't happened. https://imgur.com/gallery/p3LRF1L https://imgur.com/gallery/p3LRF1L
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  Not many people are aware - in Coeur d'Alene open-carry conservatives joined and protected protesters and successfully deterred rioters from subverting the protest. Local news interviews with protest leaders and armed volunteers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIS4C7ym5YM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIS4C7ym5YM If there is to be an alternative to the distant and aloof police state, it will have to be in the form of attentive and caring locals possessing sufficient enforcement power. Their look may vary based on local demographics, but I think that's okay as long as they are accountable to their neighbors.
  - hopfscotch 6y ago
    Every one of those people should have their weapons removed.
kthxbye123 6y ago
The cosplayers and the unmarked paramilitaries are on the same side. When the NRA and their allies advocate for an armed citizenry, they emphatically don’t mean “our political enemies”
- jki275 6y ago
  That’s absolutely untrue. Any law abiding citizen should have whatever arms they want. I don’t care what their politics is.
  - evanb 6y ago
    You may feel that way but the NRA has a history of caring who has the arms. See, for example, 1967's Black Panthers https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-...
    - jki275 6y ago
      Claiming that a 1967 position accurately reflects my opinions about something (I wasn't even born then) is pretty silly. Claiming that something that happened in 1967 is the current position of an organization on record opposing that sort of thing for at least the last 40 years that I'm aware of is also pretty silly. Claiming that a political organization that is mostly concerned with how pretty Wayne's suits are and how nice his mistress' apartment in Fairfax is reflects modern gun owners' opinions is again -- pretty silly. The NRA is a Fudd gunner's organization, they're an anachronism of the past, they're being abandoned in droves by anybody born since the 1960s, and quite frankly I don't give a shit what they think about anything -- and I especially don't care what they may have thought in 1967.

newacct583 6y ago

Do you genuinely believe that if the protestors had been armed that we wouldn't have had multiple deaths when the Park Police took the park by force? Or are you arguing that the police wouldn't have moved on the protestors at all? Knowing what happened, I think it's clearly better for all of us that the park was held by hippies with spray cans.

mywittyname 6y ago
He genuinely believes that "armed protests" are peaceful because his side has been involved in hundreds and they were all peaceful. So he obviously thinks the guns were the differentiator and not the privilege enjoyed by being a bunch of old white men with the support of the authorities. A number of cops were shot at during these recent protest. Our mayor was discussing this very fact this morning. Turn out, all that body armor is highly effective at stopping small arms fire. (There was no elaboration on who did the shooting though, so I guess it could have been friendly fire)
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  The black panthers had several armed marches.. and one reason why they took up arms was because they kept getting (illegally) arrested for marching unarmed. They actually sat at the California courthouse while armed.. and everything that day was peaceful. That did inspire Reagan to pass significant gun control laws though, both as Governor and President. Image: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.huffingtonpost.com%2Fasset%2F1910_1000%2F585aebc31800002d00e43f9e.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi...
- icelancer 6y ago
  Sounds a lot like someone who does not know the history of the Black Panthers and Republicans who used to be all about gun control.

compscistd 6y ago

In this situation, the only thing a well-armed citizenry would weaponize is the false narrative that peaceful protesters are actually violent usurpers/anarchists/antifa/{$right-wing-boogieman-here}.

acdha 6y ago

That makes things a lot more volatile: you have one side with a LOT more guns, armored vehicles, and aircraft — all you need is one mistake for them to start thinking force protection and a whole bunch of people are in the crossfire. When the dust settles, a lot of people will believe this says the protests were an Antifa army even if the first shot came from the other side.

0x8BADF00D 6y ago
The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to assemble for the purpose of violence.
- x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
  The first amendment does not include the word "peaceably."
  - zucker42 6y ago
    You are incorrect.
  - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
    Edit: (Full text of the First Amendment that I could find) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't need to. Just as it doesn't need to have a provision for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. But such actions will have consequences. Congress has the authority "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;". Assembling for the purpose of violence is by definition an insurrection. So if the First Amendment said nothing of peaceably assembling, we can assume it is meant so, otherwise the Constitution would say nothing of insurrections.
    - colpabar 6y ago

beepboopbeep 6y ago

Yes, because pop-guns do anything against trillions of dollars in armor plating and advanced weaponry. Of course we never talk about what happens if the armed population goes along with the tyrannical government against the repressed as we're seeing now. This is such a mentally lazy platitude. All arming the population has done is incentivize them to use their arms against their fellow countrymen.

kryogen1c 6y ago
> Yes, because pop-guns do anything against trillions of dollars in armor plating and advanced weaponry. of course it does. bombs or tanks dont help you hold a city - it is singly people with firearms to kill the other people with firearms. its a different story if youre talking total war, but theres basically no scenario where american military would decimate american cities. > This is such a mentally lazy platitude interesting opinion considering all you have to do is look at the last two decades of failed intervention in the middle east. EDIT: additionally, many places in the middle east were occupied against their will by the terrorist forces we were there to fight. thats not the same as a citizen militia resisting occupation
rm_-rf_ 6y ago
Right, the superior technology and advanced weaponry was what led the US to so quickly and decisively crush insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq using dusty old AK-47s and cheap improvised explosive devices.
- kcb 6y ago
  Now compare the casualties between the US and Afghanistan or Iraq.
  - drak0n1c 6y ago
    In a civil-war scenario, that level of destruction would be suicide for a government's economic and international survival and cause mass military desertion/defection. That counts as deterrence.

zorpner 6y ago

The "well-armed citizenry" has now had ample opportunity to rise up against tyranny, from federal agents seizing American children and placing them in cesspit prisons, to the regular murder of black Americans by police forces, to the waging of unjust wars in our name. They have done nothing. It's clear, at this point, that the culture of gun cosplay in America is inextricably tied up with white supremacy, and must itself also be dismantled.

ColanR 6y ago

Everyone replying to you don't seem to realize that some of these protests have involved 'well armed citizenry' already, and their doomsday predictions of the result haven't happened. https://imgur.com/gallery/p3LRF1L https://imgur.com/gallery/p3LRF1L

drak0n1c 6y ago
Not many people are aware - in Coeur d'Alene open-carry conservatives joined and protected protesters and successfully deterred rioters from subverting the protest. Local news interviews with protest leaders and armed volunteers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIS4C7ym5YM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIS4C7ym5YM If there is to be an alternative to the distant and aloof police state, it will have to be in the form of attentive and caring locals possessing sufficient enforcement power. Their look may vary based on local demographics, but I think that's okay as long as they are accountable to their neighbors.
- hopfscotch 6y ago
  Every one of those people should have their weapons removed.

kthxbye123 6y ago

The cosplayers and the unmarked paramilitaries are on the same side. When the NRA and their allies advocate for an armed citizenry, they emphatically don’t mean “our political enemies”

jki275 6y ago
That’s absolutely untrue. Any law abiding citizen should have whatever arms they want. I don’t care what their politics is.
- evanb 6y ago
  You may feel that way but the NRA has a history of caring who has the arms. See, for example, 1967's Black Panthers https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-...
  - jki275 6y ago
    Claiming that a 1967 position accurately reflects my opinions about something (I wasn't even born then) is pretty silly. Claiming that something that happened in 1967 is the current position of an organization on record opposing that sort of thing for at least the last 40 years that I'm aware of is also pretty silly. Claiming that a political organization that is mostly concerned with how pretty Wayne's suits are and how nice his mistress' apartment in Fairfax is reflects modern gun owners' opinions is again -- pretty silly. The NRA is a Fudd gunner's organization, they're an anachronism of the past, they're being abandoned in droves by anybody born since the 1960s, and quite frankly I don't give a shit what they think about anything -- and I especially don't care what they may have thought in 1967.