Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a gun owner and a supporter of the First and Second Amendment, but I don't like the idea of armed protesters invading the state capitol. How is that different from insurrection?
I'm a gun owner and a supporter of the First and Second Amendment, but I don't like the idea of armed protesters invading the state capitol. How is that different from insurrection?
Jertheber - part of our immigration decision was gun rights and being able to legally hunt and maintain and participate legally in shooting sports in the US and internationally.
The term "assault weapon" does only exist in media and public opinion fed by media.
Did anyone draw a weapon? Did anyone suggest drawing a weapon? Had a bunch of bikers shown up the uproar would be about bikers. I recall my employer a super regional bank not allowing me through the doors with jeans/helmet/suit/heels in hand when my truck hit a ditch during a snow storm and I came in on a clean and new cruiser. Danger!
NRA is in dire need of new leadership. Promoting a chair pilot to the helm was not a good move.
Draw a weapon? Most of their weapons are not in that category, one doesn't "draw" a rifle. Bikers? This isn't a comment that would warrant any response beyond that which begs for further clarity. "Clean and new cruiser'? OK you've totally lost me now. My comment had nothing to do with the NRA, so again, your response is possibly misdirected, as is your comment on the term "assault weapon."
I guess it would be expected that some would respond unfavorably to a thread which ponders the questions about the mental stability of those who come armed to their state's capital's--in defiance of state ordered precautionary measures. My post didn't really address the issues surrounding the terms of firearms classifications, and further, I've always considered that to be a stratagem utilized by those who were making an argument for their views on the right to have any and all types of weapons.
On it's face, the arrival of a mob armed with rifles and handguns, poses exactly the kind of, not so veiled threat, of the intent to use firepower in conjunction with their demands. In other words: We ain't just talkin here, we got guns!! Only a damned fool would contest the "meaning" of bringing weapons to a protest. But in the world of sh**house constitutional scholars, we see a lot of fools. I'm not against owning guns, nor do I usually engage in second amendment arguments, just because so few really understand the entirety of the language in it, not to mention that the proper frame of reference relates to a new government and it's vulnerable condition.
The debate is actually about whether those who come armed to redress their grievances of government actions, are delusional. Meaning that they are unable to assess the situation as it applies to their threat, and in this case it appears that they are indeed delusional with regard to their assuming the authorities would fail in their attempt to quell or disperse the mob should they become violent.
I'd have to say, if we have a true tyrannical government, why would that government tolerate an armed mob on it's doorstep? America is still very free, we have a truly tolerant set of laws with regard to such political tantrums, so, showing up with a gun to complain about government in America isn't about fear of the loss of freedom, no, it only shows just how free we really are..
What would be more effective, if they really wanted to make a point about the lockdowns, would be to stage a "haircut-in" or "restaurant-in" protest in capitol grounds. Set up makeshift areas to run performative operations of the businesses that are closed - e.g.: set up barber chairs and have people come to get their hair cut. Dare the state police to arrest people peacefully cutting customers' hair.
That would make the point about how lockdowns are excessive and the state is unreasonable. But that's not the point, is it?
No, what they really want is to have a Trump rally.
These people are exercising their rights and they are NOT damaging yours.
When they hanged my governor in effigy in front of my state's capitol building, on public property that belongs to the people of Kentucky, and trespassed on his front porch while carrying automatic weapons and chanting loud threats against him - yeah, they did damage the rights of all the citizens of my state. They disturbed our peace, threatened the life of Kentucky's highest elected official, and were noisy and obnoxious in the process.
Why the guns? Why the simulated lynching? Can't these ignorant, whiny bozos win support for their "cause" with civil discourse and behavior? They do not have the right to disturb the peace of others, and they certainly don't have the right to threaten others' lives.
What would be more effective, if they really wanted to make a point about the lockdowns, would be to stage a "haircut-in" or "restaurant-in" protest in capitol grounds. Set up makeshift areas to run performative operations of the businesses that are closed - e.g.: set up barber chairs and have people come to get their hair cut. Dare the state police to arrest people peacefully cutting customers' hair.
That would make the point about how lockdowns are excessive and the state is unreasonable. But that's not the point, is it?
No, what they really want is to have a Trump rally.
Restaurants, beauty salons and barber shops all reopened in Kentucky prior to Sunday's dumb-dumb festival on the Capitol lawn. These resentful guys and gals just want to dress up in camo, show off their latest tattoos (tattoo parlors are also open) and popguns, and play tough guy while claiming they're patriots because they hanged Kentucky's highest elected official in effigy before storming the front porch and patio of the Governor's Mansion and peering through the front windows.
They aren't bright or clever enough to try your very creative idea. Too sedate and peaceful to appeal to them, anyway. Can't get riled up over a barber chair.
What I'd really like to know is why the Kentucky State Police allowed things to reach the point of a mob storming the governor's residence, where he, his wife and two young children were present, and why no security was posted to the outside front of the mansion before the mock hanging took place and the mob made its way to the residence.
Supposedly, the Governor's Mansion's security guards were at the rear of the building, which was hardly helpful. They had plenty of time to walk around the mansion and station themselves on either side of the front door - why didn't this happen? It could be argued - narrowly argued - that the simulated lynching was covered under the 1st Amendment, but trespassing on posted property while making verbal threats, holding threatening signs, and carrying automatic weapons plus handguns is another story.
Governor Beshear just now concluded his daily press briefing about the pandemic (it appears to have flattened in most of Kentucky and may have just started to drop), and took questions from reporters about this ugly incident. It was clear that he was seething but was holding his (justifiable) anger under control.
He also stated that Sunday's happenings and the lack of intervention by the State Police when the mansion was swarmed would be investigated. I hope that will be the case, and that those responsible for the blatant disregard of civility and law are brought to justice. It's not illegal to be rude and dumb, but it is illegal to threaten others' well-being and potentially, lives.
I think we should begin to recognize that threatening our local and state governments, as well as our citizenry, is an act of treason. The presence of weapons like rocket launchers and rifles is not only lunacy, but a threat.
Moreover, why are these mostly white people getting away with it? (We know why.)
I think we (meaning the sane) can all agree that if groups of blacks were stomping around with missile launchers in front of state capitals, etc., the response would be entirely different.
Recently, we've all seen the photos of the armed protestors on the steps of the state capitals. Are these guys delusional or what? Do these guys think they are in a movie?
This is real life. Who were they going to shoot? If they shot any counter protestors, that would be murder. If law enforcement had a reason to ask them to leave, they would have to comply. Were they going to engage in a full shootout with police on the grounds of a government building?
Now, this isn't a discussion about the second amendment. They can own guns. That's not the issue.
This alleged "show of force" is just theater being performed by people who think they are living in a Rambo movie.
Plus, there are a ton of other problematic issues that are clearly on display here.
Thoughts?
I have a Carry Permit and own several guns, both handguns and long guns. I am a VERY STRONG supporter of the Second Amendment!
But these guys carrying rifles at rallies are NUTS!!!!!!
The 2nd amendment was never written so that there would be some kind of reserve civilian armed force that would stand up to the duly elected United States government or the duly elected government of any of its states. That fallacy is proven wrong with anyone who knows their history - since President George Washington personally put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania at the head of an army in 1794. Those rebels were doing EXACTLY what "2nd amendment enthusiasts" say they need to be prepared to do.
No, it was about the desire to avoid the U.S. keeping a large standing army that might have loyalty to a general over the United States. At that time, the notion of a "United States" was still somewhat of an abstract idea.
Of particular concern was that a general of a standing military force (read: paid soldiers or mercenaries, often used by European royalty) might be bribed by foreign interests into turning over a piece of the U.S. & aligning with Spain, France, England, etc... in return for them making him prince of it or something. That was what the framers were concerned about when they crafted the 2nd amendment, which was a repeat of something already in of the state constitutions and something in the 1689 English Bill of Rights.
Indeed this was attempted in the U.S. frontier a couple times, most famously by Aaron Burr and Gen. James Wilkinson in 1805-06.
In a country made up of citizen-soldiers who all defended their own farms, that kind of thing wouldn't happen.
It had nothing to do with the government needing to be afraid of its own citizens rising up. That's absurd. The way the constitution is designed, the government is OF, FOR, AND BY THE PEOPLE. Therefore rising in arms against it is to rise against your own people since they elected the government. Meaning, if you rise up against it, you're not a patriot, you're an insurrectionist. That's not what the framers wanted & indeed the constitution was created because the previous U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to put down insurrections.
The 2nd amendment was a statement affirming that U.S. citizenship came with privileges and rights, but also responsibilities, which included defending your country against threats. The framers would have been the first to denounce these idiots as making a mockery of those responsibilities.
If the goal is to protest some kind of injustice, then the way to do it is to protest peacefully, such as the civil rights protesters. That force the government to display its tyranny by unleashing disproportionate force against people who are only exercising their rights peacefully. The guns completely negate that high ground. More accurately, the civil rights protesters were demonstrating in order to show that local and state governments were not living up to their constitutional responsibilities & that the federal government was allowing states to violate the 14th amendment.
In this case, these armed protesters are protesting their state governments' actions to contain a public health threat. This would be like protesting sandbagging before a hurricane because you don't like the way the sandbags get in the way of the boardwalk when you take a stroll on the beach, or protesting the construction of a fort or airbase in a time of war.
I appreciate your opinion, but at the end of the day that's all it is.....your opinion.
Recently, we've all seen the photos of the armed protestors on the steps of the state capitals. Are these guys delusional or what? Do these guys think they are in a movie?
This is real life. Who were they going to shoot? If they shot any counter protestors, that would be murder. If law enforcement had a reason to ask them to leave, they would have to comply. Were they going to engage in a full shootout with police on the grounds of a government building?
Now, this isn't a discussion about the second amendment. They can own guns. That's not the issue.
This alleged "show of force" is just theater being performed by people who think they are living in a Rambo movie.
Plus, there are a ton of other problematic issues that are clearly on display here.
Thoughts?
I completely disagree. I would have liked to see armed protesters on the steps of every state capital building - if we could have had 200 armed citizens in those scenarios, what do you think happens? The message is sent loud and clear - they don’t have to use their guns, of course not. But there’s absolutely no way police are going to ask hundreds of armed protesters to leave, not going to happen, they’d stand down. It’s nice to see patriots defending the document that, you know, is the reason we are the greatest country on earth. Rather than wiping their butts with it like the governors have mostly done.
I found it to be one of the most inspiring images of the whole pandemic - Americans letting the government know, yeah we’re here, we aren’t going to take your BS. Ideally every business could have just reopened earlier and flat out ignored the state. Mass civil disobedience is best when it comes to combatting tyranny. Let me tell you with the police unions involved, these guys wouldn’t be picking any fights. By the way most police - the vast majority of them - are conservative and would agree with the protesters. Make no mistake about that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
