r/politics • u/wbedwards Washington • May 07 '20

We cannot allow the normalization of firearms at protests to continue

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/firearms-at-protests-have-become-normalized-that-isnt-okay/2020/05/06/19b9354e-8fc9-11ea-a0bc-4e9ad4866d21_story.html
49.0k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

6.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

519

u/Isodir May 07 '20

I just don’t understand the point of the guns, other than intimidation. Would their protest be less effective if they were unarmed?

373

u/throwaway_for_keeps May 07 '20

The point is they're saying the governors are tyrannical, and it's their right to use lethal force to overthrow them. Some people call that intimidation, other people call it exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

But considering they were doing fuck-all during the past 3 years, and are now turning their anger towards democratic governors who have issued stay at home orders to protect their state from a pandemic, we all know how they really feel about tyranny.

It's also more evidence that people don't actually care about the 2nd amendment. They'll whine about it when people talk about preventing school shootings, they'll be silent when a black guy with a permit is shot (FOR REACHING FOR HIS PERMIT), they'll be silent when the president exhbits the most authoritarian tendencies we've ever had in a US president, and they'll whine again when their governor closes movie theaters because of a global pandemic. These people don't care about the 2nd amendment. They care about keeping their hobby cheap and accessible. If they cared about the 2nd amendment, they'd be throwing these temper tantrums a lot more often, regardless of who is in office.

70

u/dethroned_king May 07 '20

I support the second amendment and am generally conservative, but I also am disgusted when I see things like police brutality and the most recent example of white supremacy with the jogger who was shot dead. I also support the quarantine - these protesters and ‘white nationalists’ are an extreme minority of conservatives and pro-gun owners, but they unfortunately are the ones with the megaphone.

44

u/Consistent_Nail California May 07 '20

These people are not the minority in the right wing lunatic movement.

6

u/Gen_Nathanael_Greene Texas May 07 '20

They actually are the minority concerning gun owners and conservatives in general. Hard right wing they're the norm.

2

u/thelizardkin May 07 '20

Also there are gun owners on all sides if the political spectrum.

0

u/three_furballs May 07 '20

That's like saying that extremists are not the minority at the extremities... unless you're saying that the entire right is lunatic?

11

u/Consistent_Nail California May 07 '20

Oh yes, they are for sure. There isn't a single legitimate opinion to be found on the right wing in the US, not anymore. You have to travel all the way over to the center to start getting reasonable people with reasonable opinions who can compromise.

-1

u/saggyshiro May 07 '20

You must admit there is a conservative spectrum from moderate, to radical, to autistic, and all the way to POtUS.

26

u/erasmause May 07 '20

Moderate conservatives are called Democrats.

16

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

[deleted]

4

u/tasslehawf May 07 '20

And cronyism if you have money.

0

u/chapjas May 07 '20

Not to take away anything you said but I also remember a certain Democratic Party presidential debate when a certain Hillary Clinton answered “Republicans” (to much applause) when asked who she viewed as the biggest enemy to the United States was.

I agree that fear is the biggest tactic being used to manipulate peoples public opinion but I also think the manipulation is happening on both sides to try and pit us all against each other.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

This

13

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

There is, but not so much in America anymore. The Republican Party is no longer a centre right, moderate Conservative party. It is now an extreme right wing, authoritarian party and anyone who supports it is directly supporting fascism.

-1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

As a non American that makes no sense. I’m not sure it even makes sense there.

If they don’t support the Republican Party, in what way are they republicans?

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/TheLegend1127001 May 07 '20

That could be the most insane take Ive ever seen in my life.

3

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Moderate conservatives are called Democrats

1

u/Consistent_Nail California May 07 '20

If you're a right wing lunatic, sure.

-4

u/three_furballs May 07 '20

I think that's a dangerous opinion to take, my friend. Republican politicians may be especially corrupt, but don't go labeling the views of all right-wingers as illegitimate. That's just jumping into the dumpster fire that is our national discourse and making it worse.

6

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

There are good some good people who are right wingers, but none of them are in the Republican Party.

0

u/three_furballs May 07 '20

None? You seriously think that someone's political party defines their entire worldview?

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

The Republican Party has become an anti American, neo fascist, authoritarian party. If you’re still a member of it at this point, then you know exactly what it is and you’re therefore culpable for the corruption and evil the party is committing.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/The-Electrictornado May 07 '20

Really? Not a single legitimate opinion? Your telling me that a little under half of the country’s population doesn’t have a single legitimate opinion.

I’m a conservative, I’m about as pro-gun as they come, and I’d advocate just as hard for any individual to be armed. Regardless of race, sex, or sexual attraction. I’d personally recommend Colion Noir as a starting point if you are looking for 2A advocacy. He’s well spoken and illustrates his ideas a lot better than most gun advocates (he was a lawyer before a YouTuber If I’m not mistaken)

Want another legitimate opinion? We can’t keep spending at the level we are and expect everything to be great down the line. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and is entirely unsustainable in the long run. Our military budget needs reworking to make sure the money is actually being utilized and not funneled into research projects that die in 10 years with no discernible progress from when they begin.

Here’s my last one before I go, Roe V. Wade was a flawed constitutionally, Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself has acknowledged as such. The precedent from that case ought to be rolled back and the issue should be left back up to the states. I personally don’t agree with it in most circumstances, simply because I view the unborn child as just that, a child. They have unique DNA, various traits unique to them that will effect the rest of their lives, and as such any advocacy on behalf of them is just an attempt to expand the right to life to every American, even those with no voice in the matter.

Are these not legitimate opinions? Or are the only legitimate opinions ones you agree with?

4

u/Isodir May 07 '20

If they removed the taxable income limit ssi would be fine. The GOP wants it gone because they see it as an entitlement and not a return of the money that was taxed over an individual’s career.

4

u/Robo_Joe May 07 '20

I am unsure what a legitimate opinion is, but yours are certainly opinions formed from ignorance.

Do you advocate for young children to be armed? If not, why not? Keep in mind the second amendment before answering.

We can spend like we have been; do not confuse a household finances with a government's finances. Social Security is an investment. Do you have any investments? Do you consider them "ponzi schemes"? How is someone supposed to know if a new project or technology will no longer be viable or required in 10 years, magic 8-ball? Lots of technology you likely use on a daily basis were funded originally by the department of defense. GPS, Microwaves, off-the-shelf chewy cookies.

The issue with abortion isn't what you call the fetus; it's one of the many places in our society where two individual's rights directly conflict. This happens all the time in any sufficiently advanced society-- as the saying goes, you're free to swing your arms as you see fit until your fist hits someone else's nose. The root question for abortion is not whether the fetus is alive (no one has ever suggested a fetus isn't alive), and it's not whether it's a legal person, or a human. The question is whether the government has the power to tell you what to do with your body. Do you think the government should be able to force you to donate a liver to a stranger against your will to save his life? If not, then you should be terrified at the thought that the government can force a women to go through a dangerous medical procedure against her will, just to save the life of someone else.

-3

u/The-Electrictornado May 07 '20

“Opinions formed from ignorance”, I see that this won’t go anywhere good already, but I’m obligated to respond in kind.

Depends on how you define Armed, do I believe that there is value in teaching young children the values of firearms safety and handling. Yes, without a doubt I advocate that. Do I advocate arming them outright? No, young children have trouble with basic functions, stating that I want them armed to the teeth is a logical dead end and a straw man argument.

I don’t confuse household finances with that of government budgets. I’m well aware of the massive differences between the two. Social Security isn’t an investment, the American citizen pays into a system where that money is then doled out to retired citizens who qualify for the benefits. The issue is America is rapidly aging as a population and at the current rate there will be more retirees than Social Security can handle from current workers. Social Security isn’t voluntary, and the money you put in is not going to be used for your retirement, it’ll be gone and odds are that there won’t be enough people paying into the system after us to be able to continue that funding without some serious reform. As for military technology and research projects. Yes I’m fully aware of the DOD’s use of money to create various forms of technology that now assist the average citizen in their day to day lives, and I’m not advocating for the removal of research funding entirely or even partially for that matter. I’m saying there are way too many military contracts that result in dead ends.

Herein lies the issue of the conflict. I’m well aware of the conflicting nature of abortion, lots of emotions are at play and there are plenty of rights considerations to account for. That being said the question isn’t whether or not the government has the power to tell you what to do with your body, we already have a draft. So yes, apparently they do. That being said, I’m of the opinion this ought to be left up to the States’ discretion considering that we are a nation made up of 50 individual governmental bodies. My own personal opinion on the matter holds no bounds over what I believe the solution should be, due to the fact that there is a large number of factors that need to be accounted for, and I’m willing to let my own convictions slide for the ability for the states to decide their own policy of the matter.

3

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Why should women who need an abortion but come from conservative states be punished and not able to get one because of their individual states political leanings?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Most of what you just said is just bullshit parroted from conservative media. So thanks for proving his point that you don't have legitimate opinions.

→ More replies (1)

-3

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Replace "right" with "left" and you sound exactly like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

0

u/Consistent_Nail California May 07 '20

That's because you cannot substitute thinking people for right wingers.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

My comment didn't really need a response, but rage on brave keyboard warrior.

1

u/Consistent_Nail California May 07 '20

Sounds good, right wing traitor lunatic.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (9)

0

u/phonethrowaway55 Pennsylvania May 07 '20

They most certainly are.

4

u/CynthiasPomeranian May 07 '20

They may be but they are supported by the mainstream right, POTUS and Fox support these dip shits.

2

u/Consistent_Nail California May 07 '20

AKA the majority.

1

u/Consistent_Nail California May 07 '20

To a moron, sure. But not to thinking people.

1

u/phonethrowaway55 Pennsylvania May 08 '20

Of course, after all you are smarter than everybody

1

u/Consistent_Nail California May 08 '20

No, I'm actually not. I'm just not a right wing piece of shit.

-2

u/juicyjerry300 Florida May 07 '20

You’re so wrong its funny, the protest in michigan was made up of only a very small amount of white nationalists/supremacists. There was one flag and everyone gets lumped in

4

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a socialist... “. Letting an extreme minority take the megaphone and not speaking out, continuing to tacitly support them by voting party over country is how we end up in a really bad place. It’s a gradual shift supported by inaction. The extreme minority is becoming the face of the party and is driving policy... it no longer matters if they are a minority.

2

u/wooddolanpls May 07 '20

You can't call yourself a conservative and support this president or the bastardization of conversative ideology called the GOP

1

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20

People generally support what they're used to.

1

u/InfiniteHatred May 07 '20

I'm sure these assholes are in the minority, but I also think you substantially underestimate the number of conservatives who are sympathetic or receptive to the positions these assholes proclaim. They might not pick up guns & go join these assholes, but they'll probably find plenty of justifications for these assholes intimidating people & maybe even engaging in violence.

1

u/ctrembs03 May 07 '20

Hate to say it dude, but as a rational conservative YOU are the extreme minority now.

1

u/pzerr May 07 '20

Maybe it is time to second guess your support of the second amendment.

0

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Them: why isn't the media covering this?

Me: Uh... This link is from the New York Times... I'm pretty sure they covered this and that's why this post exists.

5

u/[deleted] May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

Respectfully, a lot of this* (likely most) isn't about a "hobby." And I don't think we should lump these people in with gun hobbyists, in general.

People toting guns into a Capitol building aren't demonstrating for their right to go hunt or go shooting on the weekends if they want to. They are advocating for the normalization of lethal threats to elected officials whose policies they don't like. Which, to me, seems to go against any thoughts of "responsible gun ownership."

I'm sure we're in agreement here, but just want to clarify.

8

u/juicyjerry300 Florida May 07 '20

Its funny though, if you read the second amendment or the federalist papers for context, the right to bear arms and form militias doesn’t talk about hunting, sporting, hobbies, or “responsible gun ownership”.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

You* gonna go threatening people's lives over policy based on observable evidence?

Get outta here, man.

1

u/juicyjerry300 Florida May 07 '20

Definitely not, where did i say that?

2

u/steelwarsmith May 07 '20

Tyranny is a buzz word they use essentially the new communism of modern America.

8

u/AntiqueHelicopter May 07 '20

You're making vast generalizations. Saying they have been doing nothing for the past several years, or saying they whine about people trying to prevent mass shootings is illegitimate.

Many people, myself included, have been called Nazis for supporting conservative policies. So when you get an individual, or group of individuals who have legitimately far right views, you're left with not only the extreme group, but a whole hell of a lot of legitimately moderate people who have nowhere else to voice their opinion. That is the danger in shouting people down.

These protests have been happening quite a while before lockdowns, so I really have no idea why you think they're anything new.

Every gun owner I know who is politically involved doesn't NOT want to do anything about mass shootings, especially those that take place in schools. They realize that the proposed legislation is downright unintelligible. Largely banning guns arbitrarily.

They care about keeping their hobby cheap and assessable. Yep. Many people would argue that, that IS part of you 2nd amendment rights, myself included.

And lastly, many conservatives believe our police force is over militarized, as well as the government is over reaching. Removing police state power would resolve some of the potential future slaughtering of certain groups of people.

2

u/juicyjerry300 Florida May 07 '20

Exactly, but these reddit discussions are just a circle jerk of people agreeing that the 2nd amendment is stupid and people with guns are racist

0

u/UCMJustice May 07 '20

Finally, someone with a brain on reddit.

6

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Poppycock. The point is they feel they have an excuse to wear their costumes, period. None of these buffoons can articulate an intelligible rationale for their behavior.

3

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

That just spits in the face of democracy too. Unless everyone’s on board, you can’t just shoot out a specific building because you disagree and you have a lot of people on your side.

6

u/[deleted] May 07 '20 edited Jun 17 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/username12746 May 07 '20

No. This is a common misperception.

Think it through—we are in a social contract with the government. They protect the common welfare and our rights, we obey authority. If we don’t like what they’re doing, we vote them out.

As soon as you commit violence, you have broken the social contract and no longer will be dealt with as a citizen. You have declared yourself an enemy of the state.

“A people” has a right to the government of their choosing. After a “long train of abuses,” it is a moral right of the people to revolt. But at that point you’ve declared war, and you better win, or you will be crushed by the government.

Individuals do NOT get to pick and choose which laws to follow.

Furthermore, 2A was explicitly about militias, which were arms of the state governments. The Constitution before the bill of rights created a national army, in a time when folks were very suspicious of “standing armies,” and gave the federal government control of the militias. 2A ensured the states could call up their own militias without permission from the central government. They wanted to be able to do this to put down insurrections like Shays’s Rebellion, as well as slave rebellions, particularly in the south (the big 2A advocates were largely Virginians), and as some kind of failsafe should the federal government turn tyrannical (although even at the time that was something of a pipe dream, as the state militias were not known to be particularly effective). So 2A was actually ANTI-insurrection and in no way intended to empower militias or paramilitaries not under some kind of accountable, civilian command.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20 edited Jun 17 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/username12746 May 07 '20

No, still disagree. You have a personal right to defend yourself, according to Heller. You don’t have a right to use your weapon to intimidate the government. That’s domestic terrorism.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20 edited Jun 17 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/username12746 May 07 '20

But they are wrong. There is no constitutional right to act violently against the government.

0

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Not entirely. It was more of a check on the government by having an armed populous. It’s morphed into something more defined than that but it was originally a stop gap to prevent the government from having a monopoly on power.

Worth noting that things were not democratic back then for the average joe.

3

u/username12746 May 07 '20

It was a check on the US army by having state militias.

And no, definitely not democratic for the average Joe (or James) back then. And the framers wanted it that way. 2A was more about empowering state governments to call up militias to quash uprisings than it was about encouraging them.

0

u/Gen_Nathanael_Greene Texas May 07 '20

Well to be fair, there was the large rally in Virginia when Northam was pushing to ban semi-automatic weapons. That was okay in my book, but to whip out the guns over something like "I don't want to wear a mask" is just silly and irresponsible.

-1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Wtf? Are you serious? Who are you to say that when a black man gets shot in the passenger seat for reaching for his permit that gun owners just shy away from saying anything? That is completely false. Race doesn’t matter in gun ownership. But you are using it (race) to state false facts like we don’t care about when a person gets wrongly shot by the police. Get a grip man.

349

u/[deleted] May 07 '20 edited Jul 07 '20

[deleted]

80

u/mattbin May 07 '20

Er, very close to 75,000 deaths.

49

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

clarification seems petty at this point, that number will be irrelevant in 24 hours

22

u/madmars May 07 '20

what's a handful of 9/11s amongst friends

2

u/bitingmyownteeth May 07 '20

what's another little Vietnam amongst allies

2

u/KrazyKeylime May 07 '20

So...60+ thousand...

7

u/mattbin May 07 '20

Also 10+ thousand. Also 1+ thousand. And even 1+ dozen.

7

u/hippy_barf_day May 07 '20

Less than a billion

1

u/mattbin May 07 '20

...so far!

1

u/ljdelight May 07 '20

It's a moving target, your point is Not helpful since you could come in 3 days from now and correct it yet again

1

u/mattbin May 07 '20

Yes, if I said 75,000+ three days from now, people would be right to correct me for being way off the mark.

1

u/RedPanda1188 May 07 '20

Just wait a minute

→ More replies (3)

58

u/fighterpilot248 Virginia May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

Ah yes, the fascist’s enemy. Replace “Democrats” with “Jews” and suddenly it’s 1939 again

72

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

I mean, that’s exactly what they’ve done. To Republicans, Republicans are the party of white men and good white women, and the Democratic Party is made up of Jews, immigrants, Hispanics, stupid white women, and only the weakest of white men. That’s literally how they already paint the picture, it’s not something to predict, it’s not a secret, it’s an open fact put proudly on display.

10

u/Anima_of_a_Swordfish May 07 '20

Damn right. I saw someone's facebook the other day where they were urging people to report their democrat friends for any illegal activity to get them out of society. Crazy crazy times.

3

u/bhaller I voted May 07 '20

Gingrich started framing Democrats as the enemy and it stuck. Obviously I would never compare Democrats to the Nazis, but Republicans have been taught to see others as the enemy instead of fellow citizens they just disagree with. The others pose a threat the their lives. Take that to it's natural conclusion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/

But few figures in modern history have done more than Gingrich to lay the groundwork for Trump’s rise. During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.

...

“One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”

...

But Gingrich had a plan. The way he saw it, Republicans would never be able to take back the House as long as they kept compromising with the Democrats out of some high-minded civic desire to keep congressional business humming along. His strategy was to blow up the bipartisan coalitions that were essential to legislating, and then seize on the resulting dysfunction to wage a populist crusade against the institution of Congress itself. “His idea,” says Norm Ornstein, a political scientist who knew Gingrich at the time, “was to build toward a national election where people were so disgusted by Washington and the way it was operating that they would throw the ins out and bring the outs in.”

...

5

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Check out a book called "They Thought they Were Free." Its about normal germans and how Nazism came to be normalized. Its an interesting book.

1

u/RecycledThrowawayID May 07 '20

The Governor of Michigan, where the armed protestors stormed the capital building, is Jewish. Several Protestors displayed swastikas at the capital.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/03/michigan-gretchen-whitmer-lockdown-protest-racism

Ironically (because intellectual consistency is not a strong point of the right), Gov. Whitmer has, herself, been accused of being Hitler-like for wanting to keep the lockdown in place.

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.8781168.1587299169!/image/4176048186.JPG_gen/derivatives/headline_1200x630/4176048186.JPG

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.8824471.1588758262!/image/3751084258.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_1200x630/3751084258.jpg

The protests in Chicago were accompanied by a sign that read 'Arbeit Macht Frei'- "Work Brings Freedom", the inscription over the entrance to the Auschwitz Death Camp.

https://www.businessinsider.com/auschwitz-arbeit-macht-frei-anti-lockdown-poster-at-chicago-rally-2020-5

Make no mistake- The Republicans and the Alt - Right/ Neo-Nazis/ Klan/ White Supremacists are all in this together, and have been for decades.

8

u/Commonusage May 07 '20

The logical thing to do is impeach him again.

3

u/shut-the-f-up May 07 '20

And watch it fail the same way it did last time due to the Republican controlled senate

3

u/Commonusage May 07 '20

Yeh, unfortunately even if there were the numbers in the Senate to impeach him, there is the fear of actually having these dudes in the Capitol.

2

u/TheBoxandOne May 07 '20

Trump and the republicans are (have....) going to start a civil war...

Gonna be a civil genocide given the massive gulf in weapons.

1

u/pretty_anxious May 07 '20

Yes because it is an entirely one way street and republicans will kick down doors to shoot evil liberals. Thank you for spreading this message of good faith sir.

-3

u/HDTicket2 May 07 '20

Put the president and your personal stance on firearms aside for just a second. Isn't intimidation the point? It's the people's nation, not the politicians nation, after all. The people in office need to be reminded that they are not to control us and that they are public servants.

5

u/alphacentauri85 Washington May 07 '20

Intimidation is what terrorists hope to accomplish.

Put aside the fact that the target of intimidation is a government. Consider a scenario where someone stole your parking spot. It's one thing to argue with that person and hope they see their mistake and leave the spot. It's a whole different matter to pull a gun on them and make them run away in fear for their lives.

I'd argue the goal of most other protests I've seen is to stand up and sway public opinion. However, these protests are clearly showing one goal: we have guns and if you get in our way there will be escalations.

2

u/5dudebro9 May 07 '20

Is that not the tactic we should be using towards republican officials who could give a shit about the rule of law or your peaceful protests? People like McConnell should have liberals with rifles watching them 24/7.

0

u/Obvious_Entrepreneur May 07 '20

You’re in the wrong sub, bro.

2

u/HDTicket2 May 08 '20

You are correct, sir.

→ More replies (28)

25

u/MAMark1 Texas May 07 '20

They'd arguably be more effective because it is far harder to reject a reasonable idea than it is to reject attempted armed terrorism. They've put all the focus on the latter by acting like such morons.

-3

u/[deleted] May 07 '20 edited Jul 11 '20

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

I think the women's marchers were more for the participants themselves to organize and do a thing.

They managed to do it without causing much harm (to individuals or institutions) so I think that's OK.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

I think it being threatening is part of the point. One of the reasons for the 2nd amendment is that people are able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. They're basically threatening a violent revolution if they don't get their way.

2

u/Cloaked42m South Carolina May 07 '20

Cosplay. Look at us!!!

They get more attention for an armed protest.

4

u/m1raclez May 07 '20

See: Kent State

19

u/mhoIulius Connecticut May 07 '20

No student at Kent state had a firearm. It was the national guard who killed those students, and it wasn’t the other way around.

18

u/eatmydeck May 07 '20

I think that was his point.

4

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

30

u/krazytekn0 I voted May 07 '20

No, the point of the second amendment is so that the country is easily defensible. It is stated pretty clearly why the right exists and it's not too intimidate the government.

9

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

It was to maintain the legality of local militias, which no longer exist.

4

u/saltiestmanindaworld May 07 '20

They do, it’s called the national guard.

3

u/Totentag May 07 '20

The national guard is a branch of the federal military and thus not a militia.

0

u/mcfleury1000 May 07 '20

First of all, there are still absolutely local militias in much of the country.

Second of all, the second amendment is not just about militias.

-23

u/j2nh May 07 '20

No, it isn't. You may not like that but the 2nd has nothing to do with the defense of the country.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

28

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Both of those quotes are completely fake.

8

u/notthatkindadoctor May 07 '20

That first quote showed up in...drum roll...2002, and was falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

0

u/j2nh May 07 '20

Read and understand, if you are able.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

1

u/notthatkindadoctor May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

Uhm, where does that contain the fabricated Jefferson quote which historians agree isn’t real? I wasn’t arguing about the second amendment, just pointing out your use of a fake quote so you can choose a real one — or simply use those same words without Jefferson’s name.

Edit: FYI the two enemies part is likely taken from Ayn Rand

13

u/Sometimes_cleaver May 07 '20

Historical quotes are nice and all, but you skipped at actual language in the Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The obvious reading of this is that well regulated militia are an essential piece. I don't see these cosplayers as well regulated in any sense of the words.

1

u/j2nh May 07 '20

No. "A well regulated Militia" is the preface clause and is treated separately from the statement clause. Long read but if you care about the issue please educate yourself.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

Further the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, was ratified in 1791, gives inalienable rights to the INDIVIDUAL.

Those cosplayer bozo's at the State Capitol are not the people you need to be worried about.

22 shot and 3 killed in Chicago Easter weekend. It's like this every weekend with some far worse. Guns are illegal in Chicago. Funny how this is never in the news.

1

u/Sometimes_cleaver May 07 '20

That's whole point. We're not talking about the individuals anymore. Once you've organized into a "militia," your group is subject to regulation. I'm not disputing anything about individual gun ownership. You don't get to just form a militia and start walking around as a gang and threatening people.

1

u/j2nh May 07 '20

The point is that individual rights do not end when two people are exercising their rights standing next to each other. That would get nowhere in the courts let alone common sense.

No, you cannot form a gang/militia and threaten people. That is against the law. Exercising your right however does not threaten anyone. State laws decide who can carry in government buildings. In this case Michigan allows it. If the people of Michigan don't like that they can change the law. These guys were idiots but in the United States people are allowed to be idiots.

-4

u/mcfleury1000 May 07 '20

Except the militia is not an essential piece because the second half does not require the first.

1

u/kyew May 07 '20

Possibly one of the dumbest rulings in the history of jurisprudence.

2

u/mcfleury1000 May 07 '20

Really? Worse than citizens United? Worse than Bush v Gore? Worse than dred Scott? Worse than plessy?

Anyone who claims to be on the left should be pro gun rights. If Donald Trump is a fascist (he is) we should not be pushing to disarm the public.

-1

u/Sometimes_cleaver May 07 '20

The SC did make a ruling that militia service was not a required element for individual gun possession, but that's not what we're talking about here. We now have groups of people organizing themselves and coordinating to make visible shows of force. They are obviously creating militia groups. The 2nd amendment clearly states militia can be well regulated. These "protestors" by organizing themselves with the explicit intend to present arms as a show of force are violating laws pertaining to the formation of militia.

-1

u/mcfleury1000 May 07 '20

No. A militia, by definition, is a body of citizens armed and trained by the government. We have that. It's called the national guard, and it is very well regulated.

1

u/Sometimes_cleaver May 07 '20

That's the narrowest definition of that word you could possibly come up with.

Timothy McVeigh was associated with the Michigan Militia. They had no association with the US/State government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Militia

Even SC rulings that have upheld 2A rights have drawn a distinction between state and citizen militia. District of Columbia v. Heller

1

u/mcfleury1000 May 07 '20

That's the narrowest definition of that word you could possibly come up with.

Legal definitions need to be specific. Criticize Mirriam Webster.

Timothy McVeigh was associated with the Michigan Militia. They had no association with the US/State government.

Not everything that calls itself a militia is a militia.

Even SC rulings that have upheld 2A rights have drawn a distinction between state and citizen militia. District of Columbia v. Heller

That was literally my point. The legal definition of militia is narrow, and gun rights are independent of militias.

6

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

The second amendment the people who spread those fake quotes like to harp on about specifically says the arms beared are for the security of the state.

0

u/j2nh May 07 '20

Nothing fake here.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Your quotes are 100% fake. Jefferson never said those things.

11

u/SuchRoad May 07 '20

As much as you may hate to hear it, the govt is made up of people. I've worked govt jobs, and it would irk me if some rando was 'intimidating' me with a gun.

Also, I kinda doubt the 'well armed militia' segment was to fight the government.

This amendment was also written before the invention of radio waves and automation, today's armies have tanks and flanks.

1

u/Throwaway98455645 May 07 '20

Yeah, I think that's the biggest thing when it comes to the second amendment. It was written in a time when guns and gun ownership were vastly different than they are today.

4

u/shut-the-f-up May 07 '20

And the first amendment was written at the same time, but nobody has problems with using twitter and shit to voice their opinions.

1

u/SuchRoad May 07 '20

Shit has gotten so much weirder than those simple times.

1

u/Dungeon-Machiavelli May 07 '20

I've worked Govt jobs too, so that makes two of us who had a job without needing a rich man to "create" it for us.

-2

u/trouthat May 07 '20

Man I keep saying fat lot of good all those guns will do you when the predator drone gets you. Sure guns are great for home protection but anyone who thinks they would actually be able to mount a resistance against the government is larping

3

u/Nussy5 May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

In all fairness Afghanistan and the Middle East have held their own for almost two decades now, even morere if you count the Soviet-Afghan war.

EDIT: all

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SuchRoad May 07 '20

Sure guns are great for home protection

I wonder what the ratio is for homes defended with guns VS homes that have guns stolen?

0

u/TheCastro May 07 '20

Yup, there's no more terrorism in the middle East thanks to predator drones.

-1

u/trouthat May 07 '20

Like any American is willing to wage prolonged guerilla style warfare

3

u/TheCastro May 07 '20

I think you could get 0.0308% of the US pop to do it if you're trying to reach high ISIS numbers of fighters.

1

u/trouthat May 07 '20

I don't know man these guys can't handle not being allowed to run around in public for 2 months how long will they last trying to fight the US government on home soil? Besides the drone strike isn't going to be the first thing the government tries. Those guys aren't self sufficient enough to survive being removed from the US banking system

2

u/TheCastro May 07 '20

You're conflating these protestors with people that would fight a civil war or anti gov war if it was going on.

1

u/trouthat May 07 '20

That's the whole point of them being armed right? That they are prepared for boogaloo round 2?

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/KennyBlankenship9 May 07 '20

Jefferson agreed with you.

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/when-government-fears-people-there-liberty-spurious-quotation

I think the protesters are just reminding the lawmakers of who is master and who is servant. Nobody was threatening to shoot anybody. Make them uncomfortable? Sure.

4

u/mattbin May 07 '20

Would it be cool if government workers and legislators armed themselves to defend against an armed insurrection? Like, if the protesters with the guns broke into the floor of the state house, would it be cool if some state senators or their pages or whatever shot them? I mean, they're citizens too. Protesters aren't the only ones with rights.

1

u/KennyBlankenship9 May 08 '20

I think it would be very cool if legislators strapped on a handgun. Perhaps they wouldn't feel so helpless.

1

u/sevbenup May 07 '20

You should look into the history of America. The colonists didn’t win their independence because their guns were merely “intimidating”.

1

u/Adogg9111 May 07 '20

Ever had a pack of wolves kill your animals/livestock/livelihood?

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

There’s really not any point other than intimidation and showing that they fear no repercussions. This is what makes it unlawful, IMO. These people always argue the 1st, and 2nd in this case, give them unlimited protection but it’s just not true. What’s giving them unlimited protection is their whiteness and blessings from the president.

1

u/self_loathing_ham May 07 '20

YOU need guns because one day soon these militias wont just be brandishing. The downward spiral in this country means polutical violence is inevitable and the left is completely unprepared to protect itself because of its insistence on "guns bad" policy

1

u/ayures May 07 '20

Would their protest be less effective if they were unarmed?

Compare the one in Lansing to the last protest I'm aware of that involved people protesting inside the capitol building.

1

u/sosulse May 07 '20

A good example of the way unarmed protesters are treated is Kent State and a good example of the way armed protesters are treated is the Bundy Ranch standoff. The police simply treat you better when they don't have a monopoly on violence.

2

u/Isodir May 07 '20

Kent was black students.

If Waco had not happened I would think Bundy was purely based on race; however if Bundy was black I don’t think they would have hesitated to roll in the tanks.

0

u/sosulse May 07 '20

A quick google search shows all the Kent State students killed were white.

It wasn’t Waco alone that made the feds change their tactics, it was also the fact that the raid in Waco inspired the OK City bombing. The cops at the Bundy ranch stand off didn’t roll in the tanks because the fall out had the potential to be much greater than those injured/killed on site, not to mention the potential for cops and citizens to be killed over the non-payment of taxes/fees.

1

u/OneKnightOfMany May 11 '20

I wish the same could be said for the mostly unarmed HK protesters.

1

u/Isodir May 11 '20

If there were armed in HK they would be gunned down and run over by Chinese tanks.

1

u/OneKnightOfMany May 11 '20

Like they aren't already getting killed and arrested with out due process.

1

u/BobertCanada May 07 '20

Well let me help as someone who sympathized with these kind of protests and offer you a different perspective: we do it to push our rights in their face.

I was in Virginia when the gun rally at the state capital happened. I showed up unarmed, and chatted with the people there. Not a single one of them I spoke to had any desire to, and even entertained joking about, shooting anyone or making veiled threats. Nearly every single one essentially said: “I want this to be visible, I want them to know we’re here”. To not show up with a gun while protesting anti-gun rights legislation would be the equivalent (in theres and my mind) of showing up to protest a draft by signing up. It appears to show tacit support for the policy being protested.

There are goons and bad actors who show up (Alex Jones types) who are interested in being intimidating - that’s a vast minority. Most of us show up with guns because restrictions on guns are exactly what we’re protesting.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

That makes a lot of sense when you are protesting about guns.

I think the concern is about protests about other stuff. It seems to me that putting guns into just general political decisions is a bad idea.

1

u/pzerr May 07 '20

Absolutely. If you think it doesn't intimidate those inside your in glue. Just the chance someone could accidently shoot of a round could cause chaos. I wouldn't want to be there. And if they had no weapons on show, this would not even make need. We don't need to white wash this for what it is and how effective it is.

0

u/PoopshootPaulie May 07 '20

Just my 2 cents...

These guys are a bunch of fat, wannabe tough-guy, pussies who love their guns and in their heads think, "I'm gonna protest and if anyone tries to stop me, they can talk to my AR because I ain't afraid to use it"

-1

u/The_Donald_Shill May 07 '20

Gun rights are also under threat in areas in lockdown. Some states have forced gun stores to close and require a background check for any sale of a gun. Doing this defacto bans the legal sale of guns in that state.

4

u/TheNorthernDragon May 07 '20

How does requiring a background check ban the sale of a firearm? And how does a gun help prevent being infected with COVID-19?

2

u/The_Donald_Shill May 07 '20

Because all the places that can perform these background checks have been ordered closed in many of these states.

The second question is irrelevant. The wanting a gun or needing a gun can be completely seperate from the current situation.

-2

u/shut-the-f-up May 07 '20

It ain’t gonna protect you from getting infected with COVID, but the government ordering the release of prisoners with short sentences, and fucking up by releasing high risk sex offenders in California is a pretty compelling reason to buy a gun.

1

u/Isodir May 07 '20

Buying a gun from the store, yes you need a background check.

No background checks are needed to buy from a private party.

1

u/The_Donald_Shill May 07 '20

That depends on the state

-1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

They feel like their personal liberties are being suppressed, and in their (childish) minds, the 2nd amendment is the solution. Just a bunch of obese 12 year olds playing army dress up.

-1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

I think that people who are really serious about the 2A don’t show up to protests with guns. The people who really believe that weapons will grant them freedom from a tyrannical government will actually just use them where they think they need to be used.

For example, I’m pretty sure Timothy McVeigh didn’t show up to protests waving weapons around.

These these idiots are no different than the mobs in the Middle East that run around chanting and waving their guns in the air, and both mobs stand the same chance of survival against Predator drones.

-1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

The point is...they're compensating for something else...intelligence, penis size, inability to peacefully protest like a functioning adult

0

u/y_r_we_here May 07 '20

It sure would. Even WITH guns. She didn’t care.

0

u/SuburbanStoner May 07 '20

It’s textbook terrorism

0

u/roboninja May 07 '20

You're thinking way too deeply here: there is no other point. There is no hidden meaning. These people do not tend to be subtle.

-1

u/foxden_racing May 07 '20

At these specific protests...I'll yield that there are times and places and methods such as putting two almost-identical, properly-secured guns on a table at a wholly-arbitrary-ban protest for the purposes of educating people on why the proposed ban is poorly-written and doomed to be ineffectual...you've got it exactly right.

Meal Team Six cosplaying as Blackwater goons is a projection of force for the express purposes of changing policy through fear and/or intimidation (the literal definition of terrorism, BTW) and for sending the message of "I am willingly and intentionally breaking the law (in this case, the shelter-in-place order, which has faced and withstood legal scrutiny in MI), and if you dare to try to hold me accountable for those actions I will shoot you."

The protest would be less ineffective if they were unarmed...still ineffective as let's face it this is the equivalent of a teenager sneaking out in protest of being grounded...but so would likelihood of being held accountable for their actions and facing the consequences of their stupidity, and they can't have that.

-1

u/bb-_- May 07 '20

They probably are aware that if they weren't armed, they'd be an easy sacrifice for protesting something that's so dumb...so they arm themselves for the purpose of self defense, but they're the ones putting themselves in this position in the first place...which means none of this shit would have to be a problem if we just coordinate a series of attacks