7 ms·

I think protestors should be able to be armed with whatever police are. If they're alright firing it at someone they should be alright getting hit by it. This

I think protestors should be able to be armed with whatever police are. If they're alright firing it at someone they should be alright getting hit by it. This would be really cool because it would turn protests into paintball matches. Show the police that the citizens have the numbers and with equal weaponry they would be overpowered. Remind them who they answer to. Another thing, somewhat of an extension of the first, is that any less-lethal weapon the police carry for use on protestors should be legal to every day carry. I carry a pocket knife (legal in California) for emergencies. I really don't want to stab someone and deal with blood. It is illegal to carry a ton of less lethal alternatives like blackjacks, clubs, or batons. That has always struck me as strange. I'd much rather give someone a few bruises if it comes down to it.

augustt 6y ago
Funny how as soon as they have their less-than-lethal weapons turned on themselves they suddenly need to use deadly force (Rayshard Brooks).
minikites 6y ago
It's fascinating to watch the crowd that crows so heavily about "government tyranny" and the second amendment stay strangely quiet about police (and by extension, The State) abuse of power.
- antepodius 6y ago
  Red tribe members see people who are clearly part of blue tribe fighting the police. Blue tribe generally wants to take away red tribe's guns and expand the power of the state. Now a subset of blue tribe is protesting or rioting, fighting a subset of the state. Why should your average red tribe member think that if they helps these people, they won't turn around and stab them in the back with the same policies they've been loudly pushing (while loudly calling red tribe members nonpersons) for years? What rational person would risk their life for their tribal enemies who loudly proclaim how much they hate them and want to end their way of life? It would be (somewhat) like antifa showing up on the side of those people protesting the corona lockdown earlier this year because the lockdown is a fascist policy that overwhelming economically harms marginalised people.
- joshuaissac 6y ago
  I have read about at least one pro-gun, anti-government US-based group (described by some outlets as far-right) that has been vocal about its opposition to the abuse of power by the police, and has turned up at the recent protests.[1][2] 1. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-movement-is-not-what-you-think/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-move... 2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-53018201 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-53018201
- TACIXAT 6y ago
  That's what the Boogaloo group is and one recently killed a cop.
downerending 6y ago
> I think protestors should be able to be armed with whatever police are. That's insane. A fundamental tenet of (US) law is that using a weapon while committing a crime is itself a crime. We're not at war. There are a lot of people breaking the law, and we need to reduce that with as little harm as possible.
- minikites 6y ago
  >There are a lot of people breaking the law, and we need to reduce that with as little harm as possible. Cops are the ones breaking the law. The way to "reduce that with as little harm as possible" is to abolish the police and replace them with a public safety department that isn't systematically power hungry, racist, and violent.
  - downerending 6y ago
    You should start looking at the videos. I've seen a couple of unconscious people being kicked in the head this week by "protesters". These people are nothing like law-abiding.
    - lm28469 6y ago
      There are people being there to break bones and fuck things up, on both sides. If we focus on them instead of the underlying issues we all lose.
    - bluntfang 6y ago
      comparing civilians to police officers is a false equivalency.
    - alistairSH 6y ago
      If a few bad apples discredits an entire protest movement, why don't a few bad apples discredit the entire law enforcement apparatus?
    - williamdclt 6y ago
      Your source (from another post) seems to be a white supremacist with an agenda. I'm going to, not so respectfully, ignore you
latencyloser 6y ago
At least in the US, this is why it's not uncommon for certain demonstrations to be full of people who are armed, openly. It's much less likely that the police will open fire on a crowd that is at least equally, if not more, heavily armed. Though, this requires a certain critical mass among the demonstrators to be successful. I believe I see this more commonly with conservative demonstrations as the overlap of conservative values and gun ownership is somewhat high. It's the demonstration equivalent of mutually assured destruction, whether one agrees with it or not.
- Zak 6y ago
  There have been a few incidents of Black Lives Matter protest groups armed with rifles. I don't believe there has been any violence between those groups and police.
- minikites 6y ago
  It worked before: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-... >In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.” >The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.
- TACIXAT 6y ago
  Yea, I don't want to stand off and with real bullets. If someone pepper balls me I'd hit them back with some paint though.
yingw787 6y ago
I think the reason police treat right-wing groups far more leniently than left-wing groups is because right-wing groups are much more likely to be armed and resist violently. Ruby Ridge. Waco. Oklahoma City. Right-wing groups have consistently demonstrated their ability and will to resist encroachment on their rights and freedoms. Whether those rights and freedoms are morally legitimate is irrelevant on the streets, especially for those with skin in the game. At the end of the day, the police just want to go back home to their families, and being shot isn't a part of that. Meanwhile, left-wing groups don't resist to the same degree and in the same manner...because not blowing up a daycare with a truck bomb is the responsible thing to do. Hence they get stomped on. The right understands and has always remembered what the left has forgotten. Freedom isn't free, and the price is much, much, much higher than going out and waving a sign for a few days.
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  > I think the reason police treat right-wing groups far more leniently than left-wing groups is because right-wing groups are much more likely to be armed and resist violently. ...and because all police are right-leaning, and in some cases right-wing themselves.
  - yingw787 6y ago
    A police officer's job is keeping order, and they're paid by the state, not directly by taxpayers. So they're enforcers for whatever order the state decides works for them. If left-wing groups paid police officers to run long-term private security, and infiltrated law enforcement, and did all the stuff right-wing groups did, police officers might start espousing more left-wing takes on matters like treating protesters with respect as fellow citizens. I don't like how things are, and I don't agree with right-wing groups. I'm pointing out a hard truth. I think it's great that people are out on the streets asking for what they want, and that more and more people are listening to them. But I'm pessimistic that anybody in power will enact meaningful change, because the protesters don't act by the laws of power. That will become ever more important, and the failings ever clearer, the more and more people in power respect only power and not substantive public policy.
- 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
WC3w6pXxgGd 6y ago
That's called the 2nd Amendment. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State ..." By "well-regulated," the Framers simply meant people who are well trained (unrelated to State regulation). Militias are clearly defined as people freely coming together to protect their communities (not police). The entire idea was that well-trained community militias would protect their communities against crime and State tyranny.
frompdx 6y ago
This will destroy any credibility the protesters have. It will stop being about police violence the instant this happens. I think protesters should continue to protest without violence and do everything they can to counteract the methods used by the police to protect themselves and other protesters. That said, I am angry at what I see and it is difficult to not feel contempt for the police using teargas, pepper spray, flash bangs, and rubber bullets. That contempt has prompted me to demand reform. > It is illegal to carry a ton of less lethal alternatives like blackjacks, clubs, or batons. I'm not going to dig up sources for this. However, when I looked into the reasons for laws prohibiting these items about a decade ago I discovered that these laws came to be in the late 19th and early 20th century. Washington explicitly prohibits nun-chucks and butterfly knives. It appears this was intended to target Chinese Americans who were more likely to poses these. Those individuals may have been disenfranchised from owning firearms. This was a way to further disenfranchise them from owning any weapons. Readers of this comment should do their own research to confirm or disprove.

augustt 6y ago

Funny how as soon as they have their less-than-lethal weapons turned on themselves they suddenly need to use deadly force (Rayshard Brooks).

minikites 6y ago

It's fascinating to watch the crowd that crows so heavily about "government tyranny" and the second amendment stay strangely quiet about police (and by extension, The State) abuse of power.

antepodius 6y ago
Red tribe members see people who are clearly part of blue tribe fighting the police. Blue tribe generally wants to take away red tribe's guns and expand the power of the state. Now a subset of blue tribe is protesting or rioting, fighting a subset of the state. Why should your average red tribe member think that if they helps these people, they won't turn around and stab them in the back with the same policies they've been loudly pushing (while loudly calling red tribe members nonpersons) for years? What rational person would risk their life for their tribal enemies who loudly proclaim how much they hate them and want to end their way of life? It would be (somewhat) like antifa showing up on the side of those people protesting the corona lockdown earlier this year because the lockdown is a fascist policy that overwhelming economically harms marginalised people.
joshuaissac 6y ago
I have read about at least one pro-gun, anti-government US-based group (described by some outlets as far-right) that has been vocal about its opposition to the abuse of power by the police, and has turned up at the recent protests.[1][2] 1. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-movement-is-not-what-you-think/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-move... 2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-53018201 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-53018201
TACIXAT 6y ago
That's what the Boogaloo group is and one recently killed a cop.

downerending 6y ago

> I think protestors should be able to be armed with whatever police are. That's insane. A fundamental tenet of (US) law is that using a weapon while committing a crime is itself a crime. We're not at war. There are a lot of people breaking the law, and we need to reduce that with as little harm as possible.

minikites 6y ago
>There are a lot of people breaking the law, and we need to reduce that with as little harm as possible. Cops are the ones breaking the law. The way to "reduce that with as little harm as possible" is to abolish the police and replace them with a public safety department that isn't systematically power hungry, racist, and violent.
- downerending 6y ago
  You should start looking at the videos. I've seen a couple of unconscious people being kicked in the head this week by "protesters". These people are nothing like law-abiding.
  - lm28469 6y ago
    There are people being there to break bones and fuck things up, on both sides. If we focus on them instead of the underlying issues we all lose.
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    comparing civilians to police officers is a false equivalency.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    If a few bad apples discredits an entire protest movement, why don't a few bad apples discredit the entire law enforcement apparatus?
  - williamdclt 6y ago
    Your source (from another post) seems to be a white supremacist with an agenda. I'm going to, not so respectfully, ignore you

latencyloser 6y ago

At least in the US, this is why it's not uncommon for certain demonstrations to be full of people who are armed, openly. It's much less likely that the police will open fire on a crowd that is at least equally, if not more, heavily armed. Though, this requires a certain critical mass among the demonstrators to be successful. I believe I see this more commonly with conservative demonstrations as the overlap of conservative values and gun ownership is somewhat high. It's the demonstration equivalent of mutually assured destruction, whether one agrees with it or not.

Zak 6y ago
There have been a few incidents of Black Lives Matter protest groups armed with rifles. I don't believe there has been any violence between those groups and police.
minikites 6y ago
It worked before: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-... >In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.” >The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.
TACIXAT 6y ago
Yea, I don't want to stand off and with real bullets. If someone pepper balls me I'd hit them back with some paint though.

yingw787 6y ago

I think the reason police treat right-wing groups far more leniently than left-wing groups is because right-wing groups are much more likely to be armed and resist violently. Ruby Ridge. Waco. Oklahoma City. Right-wing groups have consistently demonstrated their ability and will to resist encroachment on their rights and freedoms. Whether those rights and freedoms are morally legitimate is irrelevant on the streets, especially for those with skin in the game. At the end of the day, the police just want to go back home to their families, and being shot isn't a part of that. Meanwhile, left-wing groups don't resist to the same degree and in the same manner...because not blowing up a daycare with a truck bomb is the responsible thing to do. Hence they get stomped on. The right understands and has always remembered what the left has forgotten. Freedom isn't free, and the price is much, much, much higher than going out and waving a sign for a few days.

metalliqaz 6y ago
> I think the reason police treat right-wing groups far more leniently than left-wing groups is because right-wing groups are much more likely to be armed and resist violently. ...and because all police are right-leaning, and in some cases right-wing themselves.
- yingw787 6y ago
  A police officer's job is keeping order, and they're paid by the state, not directly by taxpayers. So they're enforcers for whatever order the state decides works for them. If left-wing groups paid police officers to run long-term private security, and infiltrated law enforcement, and did all the stuff right-wing groups did, police officers might start espousing more left-wing takes on matters like treating protesters with respect as fellow citizens. I don't like how things are, and I don't agree with right-wing groups. I'm pointing out a hard truth. I think it's great that people are out on the streets asking for what they want, and that more and more people are listening to them. But I'm pessimistic that anybody in power will enact meaningful change, because the protesters don't act by the laws of power. That will become ever more important, and the failings ever clearer, the more and more people in power respect only power and not substantive public policy.
6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

WC3w6pXxgGd 6y ago

That's called the 2nd Amendment. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State ..." By "well-regulated," the Framers simply meant people who are well trained (unrelated to State regulation). Militias are clearly defined as people freely coming together to protect their communities (not police). The entire idea was that well-trained community militias would protect their communities against crime and State tyranny.

frompdx 6y ago

This will destroy any credibility the protesters have. It will stop being about police violence the instant this happens. I think protesters should continue to protest without violence and do everything they can to counteract the methods used by the police to protect themselves and other protesters. That said, I am angry at what I see and it is difficult to not feel contempt for the police using teargas, pepper spray, flash bangs, and rubber bullets. That contempt has prompted me to demand reform. > It is illegal to carry a ton of less lethal alternatives like blackjacks, clubs, or batons. I'm not going to dig up sources for this. However, when I looked into the reasons for laws prohibiting these items about a decade ago I discovered that these laws came to be in the late 19th and early 20th century. Washington explicitly prohibits nun-chucks and butterfly knives. It appears this was intended to target Chinese Americans who were more likely to poses these. Those individuals may have been disenfranchised from owning firearms. This was a way to further disenfranchise them from owning any weapons. Readers of this comment should do their own research to confirm or disprove.