4 ms·

Open carry states might have a rough time. ETA: maybe a better way to phrase this would be to contrast between open carry states and restricted carry states. I

Open carry states might have a rough time. ETA: maybe a better way to phrase this would be to contrast between open carry states and restricted carry states. IANAL, but in NYS, for example, my understanding is that these people would be breaking the law the second they marched on Albany openly carrying firearms. ETA2: Downvotes for pointing out reality?

mod 6y ago
Breaking the law is a storied tradition for protesters. Not historically open-carry laws, granted. Anyway I'm not sure why that means the state will have a rough time. It may mean they'll have an easier time, as they have a readily-available reason to arrest the protesters.
- adamsea 6y ago
  “Breaking the law nonviolently is a storied tradition for protestors. AKA civil disobedience.” There, fixed that for ya :);)
  - loopz 6y ago
    Proper civil disobedience is about non-violence. Illegally carrying guns seems to be acting in bad faith.
matwood 6y ago
Maybe you were originally misunderstood? I agree with your point. Getting a mob whipped up into riot level excitement is a completely different situation if the mob all has guns holstered and shouldered.
- claar 6y ago
  Likely the downvotes were from people who either open carry themselves or know many other level-headed and law-abiding people who also legally open carry. As a community, I would argue that those who regularly open carry are much less likely to incite or join a violent protest than those who do not open carry. But perhaps I've spent too much time in the Bible belt.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    The responsibility of the vast majority of people who open carry does not change the fact that open carry laws complicate the task of policing the expected armed protests. (This is not to argue whether open carry laws are, on balance, a good or bad thing for society, that’s a different issue.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
africanboy 6y ago
What really got me when I saw the pictures of the insurrectionists of Capitol Hill was the fact that many of them had guns on them. many were not only carrying arms, but where also wearing armours, like soldiers on a mission. and with those guns and armours they were trying to seize control of the Parliament. and to add insult to injury, 5 people died! where I come from it is unconceivable. The last time someone died during a protest was 20 years ago, it was a boy protesting the G8 in Genova, killed by a stray bullet shot by a young police officer, too young to have the necessary experience to be there that day. we still talk about it as a national tragedy and a complete failure of the police forces and as a reminder of the dangers of far right politicians taking control of the forces - that day the ministry in charge was a former member of a fascist party, promoted by Berlusconi. Luckily few years later he disappeared from the political stage, unfortunately not for reasons related to what he did that day, but for lying about the property of a house in Monte Carlo. the idea of someone attacking the Parliament guns in hands is terrifying; you would see the army patrolling the streets and people protesting from North to South here. even more terrifying is the idea that those people are simply "angry citizen" or more accurately "professionals chaos makers" but acted and were equipped like military troops. I think USA has a violence problem, before the political problem. that's what makes everything scarier from the point of view of a person living in an allied country of the USA, filled with US military bases, but on the other side of the ocean: the idea that everything could happen and there is nothing anybody can do to stop it. EDIT: I don't understand if the downvotes are because some people disagree that 5 people dead during an armed attack to a democratic Parliament is an inconceivable display of violence, especially in the greatest democracy in the World or because some people think that an armed attack to a democratic Parliament, in a country that holds atomic missiles, is something we shouldn't worry about... must be hard for them to realise that in USA it is quite easy to plan and execute something that not even in Iraq or Lybya has ever happened (also because USA bombed them)
- zepto 6y ago
  “you would see the army patrolling the streets and people protesting from North to South here” I’m not downplaying the problems the US has, but I’m not sure that having the army patrolling the streets is an upgrade.

mod 6y ago

Breaking the law is a storied tradition for protesters. Not historically open-carry laws, granted. Anyway I'm not sure why that means the state will have a rough time. It may mean they'll have an easier time, as they have a readily-available reason to arrest the protesters.

adamsea 6y ago
“Breaking the law nonviolently is a storied tradition for protestors. AKA civil disobedience.” There, fixed that for ya :);)
- loopz 6y ago
  Proper civil disobedience is about non-violence. Illegally carrying guns seems to be acting in bad faith.

matwood 6y ago

Maybe you were originally misunderstood? I agree with your point. Getting a mob whipped up into riot level excitement is a completely different situation if the mob all has guns holstered and shouldered.

claar 6y ago
Likely the downvotes were from people who either open carry themselves or know many other level-headed and law-abiding people who also legally open carry. As a community, I would argue that those who regularly open carry are much less likely to incite or join a violent protest than those who do not open carry. But perhaps I've spent too much time in the Bible belt.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The responsibility of the vast majority of people who open carry does not change the fact that open carry laws complicate the task of policing the expected armed protests. (This is not to argue whether open carry laws are, on balance, a good or bad thing for society, that’s a different issue.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

africanboy 6y ago

What really got me when I saw the pictures of the insurrectionists of Capitol Hill was the fact that many of them had guns on them. many were not only carrying arms, but where also wearing armours, like soldiers on a mission. and with those guns and armours they were trying to seize control of the Parliament. and to add insult to injury, 5 people died! where I come from it is unconceivable. The last time someone died during a protest was 20 years ago, it was a boy protesting the G8 in Genova, killed by a stray bullet shot by a young police officer, too young to have the necessary experience to be there that day. we still talk about it as a national tragedy and a complete failure of the police forces and as a reminder of the dangers of far right politicians taking control of the forces - that day the ministry in charge was a former member of a fascist party, promoted by Berlusconi. Luckily few years later he disappeared from the political stage, unfortunately not for reasons related to what he did that day, but for lying about the property of a house in Monte Carlo. the idea of someone attacking the Parliament guns in hands is terrifying; you would see the army patrolling the streets and people protesting from North to South here. even more terrifying is the idea that those people are simply "angry citizen" or more accurately "professionals chaos makers" but acted and were equipped like military troops. I think USA has a violence problem, before the political problem. that's what makes everything scarier from the point of view of a person living in an allied country of the USA, filled with US military bases, but on the other side of the ocean: the idea that everything could happen and there is nothing anybody can do to stop it. EDIT: I don't understand if the downvotes are because some people disagree that 5 people dead during an armed attack to a democratic Parliament is an inconceivable display of violence, especially in the greatest democracy in the World or because some people think that an armed attack to a democratic Parliament, in a country that holds atomic missiles, is something we shouldn't worry about... must be hard for them to realise that in USA it is quite easy to plan and execute something that not even in Iraq or Lybya has ever happened (also because USA bombed them)

zepto 6y ago
“you would see the army patrolling the streets and people protesting from North to South here” I’m not downplaying the problems the US has, but I’m not sure that having the army patrolling the streets is an upgrade.