Responsible gun owners don't do this.

[chicagoresident]

I don't see any lunch counters in those photos.

Again, a right removed means its not a right in the first place, so just because they passed gun control doesn't mean it was a bad use of that right.

 

Largely edited out of the narrative of the civil rights movement is that civil disobedience WAS protected by guns in many instances.

https://youtu.be/7U3spArjhUA I suggest looking into the life of civil rights leader Robert F Williams who did use arms, armed his people via his NRA chapter and supporting chapters, and had his people provide protection for several civil rights demonstrations. Despite having to exile himself and peaving off every single communist host country that he was exiled to he returned to the US, beat all charges, and lived to an old age. Heck, even Dr King applied (and was denied) a concealed carry permit at one point so even he doubted nonviolence. For every Dr King and Gandhi adherent there was a counterpart ready to use violence when peaceful means failed, and the governments knew this.

 

Again, I hate to equate these clowns to the civil rights movement, but arms are good deterrent if the government actually believes theyll be used at a large scale. There needs to be enough people on your side willing to use force when noncompliance fails. There definitely isnt for these lockdown protests, so its a LARP. Theyve shot themselves in the foot by limiting their scope of grievances with government and made it a Trump thing, which is why divide and conquer is so effective.

[steveTA84]

 

I don't see any lunch counters in those photos.

Again, a right removed means its not a right in the first place, so just because they passed gun control doesn't mean it was a bad use of that right.

Largely edited out of the narrative of the civil rights movement is that civil disobedience WAS protected by guns in many instances. https://youtu.be/7U3spArjhUA I suggest looking into the life of civil rights leader Robert F Williams who did use arms, armed his people via his NRA chapter and supporting chapters, and had his people provide protection for several civil rights demonstrations. Despite having to exile himself and peaving off every single communist host country that he was exiled to he returned to the US, beat all charges, and lived to an old age. Heck, even Dr King applied (and was denied) a concealed carry permit at one point so even he doubted nonviolence. For every Dr King and Gandhi adherent there was a counterpart ready to use violence when peaceful means failed, and the governments knew this.

Again, I hate to equate these clowns to the civil rights movement, but arms are good deterrent if the government actually believes theyll be used at a large scale. There needs to be enough people on your side willing to use force when noncompliance fails. There definitely isnt for these lockdown protests, so its a LARP. Theyve shot themselves in the foot by limiting their scope of grievances with government and made it a Trump thing, which is why divide and conquer is so effective.

 

Spot on. They totally screwed the message by showing up in/with MAGA gear

[chicagoresident]

d

[Smallbore]

Responsible government leadership would not create the environment that provoked this action by responsible gun owning citizens.

Tyranny always condemns those seeking justice.

[fxdpntc]

 

 

I don't see any lunch counters in those photos.

Again, a right removed means its not a right in the first place, so just because they passed gun control doesn't mean it was a bad use of that right.

Largely edited out of the narrative of the civil rights movement is that civil disobedience WAS protected by guns in many instances.

I suggest looking into the life of civil rights leader Robert F Williams who did use arms, armed his people via his NRA chapter and supporting chapters, and had his people provide protection for several civil rights demonstrations. Despite having to exile himself and peaving off every single communist host country that he was exiled to he returned to the US, beat all charges, and lived to an old age. Heck, even Dr King applied (and was denied) a concealed carry permit at one point so even he doubted nonviolence. For every Dr King and Gandhi adherent there was a counterpart ready to use violence when peaceful means failed, and the governments knew this.

Again, I hate to equate these clowns to the civil rights movement, but arms are good deterrent if the government actually believes theyll be used at a large scale. There needs to be enough people on your side willing to use force when noncompliance fails. There definitely isnt for these lockdown protests, so its a LARP. Theyve shot themselves in the foot by limiting their scope of grievances with government and made it a Trump thing, which is why divide and conquer is so effective.

 

Spot on. They totally screwed the message by showing up in/with MAGA gear

 

Sorry. Its called the 1st Amendment...your "opinion" notwithstanding

[chicagoresident]

 

 

Theyve shot themselves in the foot by limiting their scope of grievances with government and made it a Trump thing, which is why divide and conquer is so effective.

Spot on. They totally screwed the message by showing up in/with MAGA gear

Sorry. Its called the 1st Amendment...your "opinion" notwithstanding

Lol, I think you missed my point, you should be able to protest over anything armed with anything, thats freedom. But these protestors are gonna look real dumb when their wifes head explodes from a trigger happy federal agent while you hold signs for the leader of the executive branch that will be absolved of that murder.

 

Trump either doesn't have full control of the Executive branch or just doesnt care, but any actual insurrection kicks off and he definitely doesnt have your back. So again, looks real LARPy, protesting government while supporting government. Dumb as this

[fxdpntc]

Yeah, my dramaphone's battery needs replaced. Almost no bars...no reception.

[chicagoresident]

I mean pick one, drama and LARPing or a Federal government that gassed children to death over legal hellfire triggers.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-07-07/77866/

These protests are being allowed to protest until theyre not. Then theyll do nothing at all...

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_05_2020/post-16154-0-41441000-1588912928.jpeg

[davel501]

We were having such a good conversation. Then I go away for a while and somebody drives the whole thing into a ditch.

[chicagoresident]

From 1776 the American revolution to 1791 the Whiskey rebellion it only took 15 years for the US government to start shooting at people for the exact same thing we shot at the British for. The US government has been executing anyone thats stepped out of line since then. If that uncomfortable fact stirs controversy than sorry for blackpilling you on your mythos.

 

The only time in American history armed rebellion won anything was for the civil rights of African Americans. From the civil war to the civil rights movement. That was stamped out by a bunch of bureaucracy, cronyism, and propaganda (CoIntelPro, redlining, pop culture). To come full circle thats what these protestors are facing and theres no historical context where theyve won.

[davel501]

I wasn't referring to you. I know the constitution only applies if you make it to court. Waco on Netflix does a great job of illustrating this. Probably should be required viewing for the "but muh first amendment" crowd.

 

I do wonder if we are losing focus on the fact that using the 2nd to intimidate others out of their 1st is wrong. Yes, the government sometimes murders people but that isn't what's happening in the incidents we are discussing.

[45Badger]

Chicagoresident-

 

Amen!

[davel501]

I guess next time I need to quote the text of the post I replied to. They keep evolving.

[borgranta]

 

 

Because larping in your cheap a** condor gear is the same as taking up arms for your country. People need to leave the guns home where they belong

Totally defeats the benefits of open or concealed carry. Why would I leave my defensive tools at home while I am exercising my right to assemble or address my grievances when I carry them at all other times?

 

 

^ this ***

Defensive carry is all about concealing your capabilities until you have no choice but to deploy them, responding with the appropriate amount of force to stop the threat.

 

This display is about intimidation. It is offensive in nature. These people might as well be members of Moms Demand Action or any of the other Bloomberg shell groups.

 

Using that logic someone could argue that law enforcement must therefore be criminals with badges since they openly carry while on duty in order to intimidate and terrorize because based on this logic openly carrying is intended to intimidate and terrorize. That must mean that the military can be labelled as terrorists since they openly carry as well. Also that means that America was founded by terrorists as well. Does this means that George Washington was the first terrorist General of this country?

[davel501]

 

 

Defensive carry is all about concealing your capabilities until you have no choice but to deploy them, responding with the appropriate amount of force to stop the threat.

 

This display is about intimidation. It is offensive in nature. These people might as well be members of Moms Demand Action or any of the other Bloomberg shell groups.

 

Using that logic someone could argue that law enforcement must therefore be criminals with badges since they openly carry while on duty in order to intimidate and terrorize because based on this logic openly carrying is intended to intimidate and terrorize. That must mean that the military can be labelled as terrorists since they openly carry as well. Also that means that America was founded by terrorists as well. Does this means that George Washington was the first terrorist General of this country?

 

 

Woah there III'per. Go peddle the stuff somewhere else. Nobody here is hanging the terrorist label on government officials performing their lawful duties.

[mauserme]

Woah there III'per. Go peddle the stuff somewhere else. Nobody here is hanging the terrorist label on government officials performing their lawful duties.

I think borgranta was making the point that open carry isn't always about intimidation. Often it's simply the most practical way to be armed.

[davel501]

 

Woah there III'per. Go peddle the stuff somewhere else. Nobody here is hanging the terrorist label on government officials performing their lawful duties.

 

I think borgranta was making the point that open carry isn't always about intimidation. Often it's simply the most practical way to be armed.

It's a trap. The purpose of the police is to enforce the law by all means up to and including lethal violence. I would suppose they open carry for a number of reasons. It sucks to lift heavy objects when carrying appendix being first and foremost in my mind after a bad experience but open carrying also helps them to let people they come in contact with know that things can go that far so there is some intimidation there too. Given the intimidation factor, to say yes that exists I would have to say that police are terrorists and I see that as a trap.

 

Borgranta has created a false connection between necessary intimidation and terrorism.

[borgranta]

 

Woah there III'per. Go peddle the stuff somewhere else. Nobody here is hanging the terrorist label on government officials performing their lawful duties.

I think borgranta was making the point that open carry isn't always about intimidation. Often it's simply the most practical way to be armed.

 

Exactly my point. Generalizations like claiming that open carriers are criminal thugs is not much different than claiming that all Muslims are terrorists and all the cops are racists. Generalizations can potentially contribute to innocent people being attacked for exercising rights.

[chicagoresident]

Using that logic someone could argue that law enforcement must therefore be criminals with badges since they openly carry while on duty in order to intimidate and terrorize because based on this logic openly carrying is intended to intimidate and terrorize. That must mean that the military can be labelled as terrorists since they openly carry as well. Also that means that America was founded by terrorists as well. Does this means that George Washington was the first terrorist General of this country?

This is subjective, and this is why optics and a populist apolitical message are more important for both movements and missions. Grow your allies and clearly define your enemies. Perception defines armed terrorists and armed freedom fighters. Not a bunch of Quixotic rhetoric. These protestors dont even own the narrative...

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality judiciously, as you will we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and thats how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

[Warped]

borgranta

Quote#

Also that means that America was founded by terrorists as well. Does this means that George Washington was the first terrorist General of this country?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well ah yeah I would say they were that

and he was that also

They overthrew the prevailing government of the time and created there own

What term/description is accurate

Terrorists Treasonous Traitors Coup ?

I am also not taking sides in this discussion just pointing out that they were Traitors to the Government

[ChicagoRonin70]