If by “military style weapons” you mean AR-15s, those are actually the most popular rifle in the US. So what they are carrying isn’t unusual or exotic, it is just that the popular technology has moved on from the day when everyone would have been carrying a Winchester or such.
Nazis want violence. Check.
Wait – why are you waiting for “If I see a Nazi causing unjust harm?” You just made clear that the Nazis want to be violent. It is their specific intent.
With that in mind, why are you waiting until you, personally, see something? That Nazi bastard is going to do something to someone else after you aren’t looking, for sure. Right?
The reasonable thing to do is to enforce existing laws and have the police keep the groups apart. Their have been lots of protests and counter protests in american history. What made Charlottesville different is that police did a poor job coordinating with the groups and allowed violence to happen. If police allow violence then that violence will escalate, if the police don’t allow violence it won’t.
Are those people members of AntiFa, or is “AntiFa” now a shorthand toi make anyone who doesn’t like Nazis sound scary?
I mean, I checked out their website and see no reference to a connection to AntiFa. Is there one I am unaware of?
Cool, so after the panicked gunman opens fire he can be successfully prosecuted. The system works. Unfortunately, this isn’t much help to his victims, and given that our own Gorsnak, who seems like a pretty well educated dude, is not well versed in the legal idiosyncrasies of self defense, it seems likely that your average white nationalist doofus when placed under pressure will also not share your extensive understanding of the legal ramifications of his actions. Having laws on the books that make it illegal will not provide any more measure of security for those attending rallies, than will telling gun owners that they don’t need a gun to protect their home because we have laws on the books that make breaking and entering illegal.
The problem raised by the OP is that these rallies are inherently emotional places were people act out aggression that they normally might control. I don’t believe that James Fields went to the rally with the intent of driving his car into a crowd of people. He just got caught up in the moment. Adding guns to such an emotional mix is asking for trouble.
I do however, agree with you Bricker as far as the chance of such legislation as that proposed by the OP passing. American Democracy is reactive not proactive. So until there is an actual mass shooting at one of these protests (and no Bricker I’m not quallified to assign a probability to such a scenario and put money on the line) no steps will be taken to prevent one.
I don’t see any particular evidence of his education on the issue. In fact, he specifically disavowed knowledge above and noted he’s NOT well-educated on the issue.
I think it’s pretty clear that the RR/JBGC people are accurately described as “AntiFa”, but it’s not like there’s an official AntiFa membership roster we can check. Anyways, here’s a NYT article titled “Who Were the Counterprotesters in Charlottesville?” At the top of the article, there is a photo of several AntiFa folks with long guns. The caption says “A group of counterprotesters who identified themselves as antifa, or anti-fascists, rested during a rally of white nationalists in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday.” I have a difficult time imaging more concrete evidence than this that there have been Antifa people armed with firearms at protests.
I don’t see any particular evidence of his education on the issue. In fact, he specifically disavowed knowledge above and noted he’s NOT well-educated on the issue.
I don’t want to wander into the quagmire of what an ‘Assauly Rifle’ is; I think we both know that no one has brought a belt fed weapon to a rally. Still, it seems that folks packing heat preffer their weapons to have rail systems, lights and lazer sights to a more conventional rifle that one would go deer hunting with.
All of this involves lots of differing psychologies and what different people are likely to do in such situations.
No one really knows why these guys brought guns to the rally/protest. Maybe they wanted to look tough, maybe they knew they were extremely unpopular and felt they needed to carry to not get beaten to a pulp. Maybe both sides figured it would make for a great visual.
I am guessing there were regular protesters on each side that maybe showed up because they did not think it right that the statues were going to be taken down, or that Nazis needed to be protested. My guess is most of those will decide to stay home in the future if there are guns present.
I doubt anyone on either side really wanted to shoot a gun. As some want to be believed to do anything to the other side, most people are not really geared to kill another person. So no, I don’t think the majority were likely to use the gun they were carrying (I would guess a number of those guns were not even loaded).
It kind of reminds me of West Side Story, clubs and chains are fine, but when you start getting to knives and guns, that changes the equation.
Yes, I know that in gang wars, people get shot, in biker battles, people get shot. Most of these guys are not hardened gang members, they are college students, or working class joes, or suburbanites.
As was mentioned, did anyone with a club hit a guy with a gun? Probably not, and that is a reasonable enough answer, I can avoid getting hit by clubs by carrying a gun, even if I do not have any intention of firing it.
The fact that a guy plowed into a group of people killing one and injuring a lot of others, yet no one tried to shoot him. They went after him, but no one shot him. That tells a lot about the lack of desire to shoot the guns they were carrying.
As Bricker said, I would not carry a gun to such, but then again, I would not go to such a rally (for either side). I will stand for someone being abused, but I am not looking for trouble. Anyone going to such a rally is looking for trouble.
And while the attendees may not be completely versed in the laws regarding the use of guns, you can bet they know that most likely any use of the gun will land them in jail.
And when you are talking long guns, they are not very useful once the person is pounding you with a club, but just aiming it at someone charging you is likely enough to stop any attack. So it would be hard to claim you shot in self defense, especially when you are purposefully carrying a gun at such an event.
In the end, I am going with those carrying guns were mainly doing it to look tough and to attempt to keep from getting their butts kicked.
Your missing my point. I wasn’t saying he was well educated about this issue, In fact I acknowledged that your education in this area was far superior. I was saying that there was no reason to believe that his level of understanding of the issue was well below that of the average gun toting white supremacist. And that if he didn’t know the difference how can you assume every single one of them would.
Well, do note that I am Canadian and our rules for carrying and using weapons in public are significantly different from yours. I don’t think it unreasonable at all to assume that a typical American gun enthusiast (and I would guess that many of the gun-toting white supremacists would be such) would be better educated than I on what constitutes a situation allowing lethal force in self-defense in the US.
Just in case people keep thinking that this is something that can’t happen because it hasn’t happened, it has happened.
Fortunately, this was a smaller event than some of these we are seeing now, and there were not as many guns in the crowd, certainly not as many displayed and carried as openly and as accessible as the charlottesville protest, so there was not much of a chance for retaliation.
But yeah, if I were on the armed anti-fascist side, and the nazis shot one of mine, even if it were provoked by one of mine throwing a bottle of urine or something stupid like that, then I suppose that I need to shoot back at the Nazis to protect myself and my friends, and they need to shoot at us for the same reason.
I’d almost be willing to be against you, Bricker, that sometime in the next few months to a year, we are going to see a bloodbath at one of these events, but I don’t want to be right, and winning some paltry bet would make me feel sick if it was at the expense of other’s lives.
As the number of guns ramp up, and the emotion on both sides does not go down, it’s not a matter of if this event happens, it’s a matter of if this event happens again.
So let’s just call it like it is.
Let’s suppose a group of alt-right Neo-Nazis are all protesting, carrying tiki torches and goose-stepping around. All of them have AR-15s.
Let’s suppose that the “alt-left” is really out to protest them. And unlike the real protestors, these guys are all actual communists. They are parading around with a Soviet flag and have AK-47s.
Let’s suppose that on one side or another, somebody thinks they see one of those dirty nazis/communists pointing his rifle in their direction. It doesn’t have to actually happen, it just has to look like it happened.
If someone points a loaded rifle at you who is not a police officer, do you have the right to shoot them first in self defense or not? If you think you see them doing it, but they aren’t, but you are able to convince a jury of your peers of what you saw (for example, maybe all your Nazi/Communist buddies verify they also saw a loaded rifle pointed at them), is this not grounds for self defense?
So a Nazi or Communist fires a shot to eliminate the threat of the aimed weapon from the other side. Well, umm, doesn’t everyone on the other side, now that a bullet went flying and hit somebody, automatically have the right to self defense/stand your ground? Don’t they have the legal right to take a knee, aim their rifles the other way, and eliminate any perceived threats ?(such as all those guys holding guns who are now beginning to aim their way…)
Bricker would have you believe that such a scenario is unlikely. And it probably is, tbh. For example, it only occurs if both sides all have guns. If one side is open carrying but the other side is carrying just flowers and cell phones, no gunfight. And Bricker would point out that such an unlikely scenario does not give the State justification to curtail everyone’s gun rights just because something rare like this could potentially happen. He might be right about that as well.
With that said, what makes this an illegal gunfight?
As a side note, in other countries, these kinds of factional conflicts, sort of mini civil wars where there are open shootouts, happen all the time or have happened. It’s not exactly a new thing. Pretty much has been going on since the firearm was invented. In fact, has been going on long before that. So legally allowing everyone to have a gun and then not expecting people to do what they have done for thousands of years is ignorant, in my opinion. Maybe the benefits of everyone having a gun outweigh the risks, but this is a risk.
I mean, if their word and actions are to be ignored, what exactly would you draw conclusions from?
For one, I have no interest in playing into their hand. Acting pre-emptively, however justified, provides them with the means of causing more harm.
Second, most of these imbeciles are sniveling cowards who are more bark than bite. Individually they are incapable of acting, and are dangerous specifically because they are operating in groups wherein their capacity to act on their desires is amplified by all sorts of psychological phenomenon (shared responsibility & group think spring immediately to mind). There are however a sufficiently large number who are not more bark than bite to warrant a preparedness for immediate, violent resumption of America’s Favorite Passtime. Casually discerning between the two is not feasible.
There are of course other reasons, but those two are sufficient by themselves.
Reflecting on the events of last weekend, there appears to be a good bit of evidence contradicting your claim that “Individually, they are incapable of acting, and are dangerous specifically because they are operating in groups …”
You misread my statement. Most, I said, are snivelling cowards. I then went on to say that a significant minority aren’t and linked to the very thing you reference as an example..
It helps to read when responding.
Not nazis, as far as I can tell, but this is pretty close. I can’t seem to find out if this where we are in this trial. Perhaps a better Googler or a Seattle local can help me out.
You are right, I did. I should have read “they” as references to “most”. My bad and thanks for the correction.
A person’s intention matters. For example, the various state iterations of the Castle Doctrine do not extend to making lethal booby traps legal.
If you deliberately plan to put yourself in a situation where lethal force would otherwise be permissible, you cannot legally claim self-defense.