It is wrong to bring guns to a protest

[begbert2]

@spark240

Destigmatization was not the goal of this demonstration. This particular event was intended to be provocative, and it was obviously very successful in its intended purpose, especially in relation to the small number of participants.

For efforts intended at destigmatization (or “normalization”), you probably want to look at the “open carry” movement, who are likewise asserting their right to bear arms, but mostly express it in terms of wanting it to be unexceptional to see armed private citizens in public places.

Right. I was just remarking in on the idea that this protest was intended to forward the goal of acclimatization, which was how I read the post I responded to.

@spark240

It is already unexceptional for armed private citizens to be in public places; all American readers of this forum have passed among and interacted with such armed citizens virtually every day they’ve gone out in public. The difference is that almost all of those people were carrying concealed weapons, so many folks still freak out at the sight.

Well, obviously if we don’t know they’re there we’re not going to freak out.

And I doubt you can prove that everyone here’s interacted with armed citizens every day. Heck, a lot of days I hardly interact with anybody.

[Zebra]

@Shodan

And with equal respect, I think you are mistaken.

Czarcasm and Zebra are saying things like this - So people who carry weapons to a protest are “thugs” and “terrorists”, threatening and like the Mafia.

But the belief that the government might try to stop them from all this is paranoid and stupid and insincere. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

So the government should not protect the population from threats?

They threatened people.

Vanderboegh said some participants were “pretty disappointed at how few people turned out here,” but then likened them to another “determined minority,” the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto.

He recounted for the crowd his successful calls for bricks to be thrown into Democrats’ offices. "I hope to make them understand that the situation was coming to a fundamental break when people innocent and guilty alike were going to begin dying for their own stupid failure to comprehend the real situation that we are all in," he warned.

He then led the crowd in chanting what he called a Southern “battle cry” of “Oh hell no!” Explained the Alabaman: "When you hear it, where I come from, you know that somebody’s going to get beat, stabbed or shot, and the guy that takes the beating, the knife blade, or the bullet undoubtedly deserves it."

bolding mine I believe that Vanderboegh is the organizer and or the featured speaker.
However there is nothing in my argument about the restriction of gun ownership or the restriction of the right to peaceable assembly. And except for some language, this was a peaceful assembly. They were protesting the gun control laws in D.C.
I think it is a bad idea to bring guns to a political protest for safety issues. Also, the general point of a political protest is to win support for your viewpoint. They seem to agree with a famous organized crime figure Al Capone. They thing they’ll get a lot further with a kind word and gun than just a kind word.

I disagree.
My main point is that taking risks with guns is a bad idea. Be it a political rally, a film set, or shooting beer cans when you’re drunk.

Oh and choosing April 19th for this protest is pretty tacky as well but that has little to do with guns.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Bricker

But the belief that a large, armed crowd is intimidating must arise from some fear, right? That is, intimidation is the inference that you will be subject to some objectionable consequence, is it not?

In this case, I suggest that the obvious inference you would have the reader draw is that you fear armed response – that at some point, the large armed crowd would use their weapons. If this is not the case, then what’s the difference between an equally large, unarmed crowd?

And my rejoinder is that the numbers don’t support that inference. I can point to plenty of left-wing protests that have turned violent, to greater or lesser degrees, but you can’t actually identify a single instance in which your inchoate fear has been realized.

Actually, I can cite cases in which armed demonstrators have turned violent - beginning, as I mentioned in my OP, with the case of Kyrgyzstan. (In fact, the Tulip Revolution protests back in 2005 also turned violent). I could cite other example as well - rallies by gun-armed demonstrators in Lebanon, Gaza, and many other places. You’re quite correct to say that I can’t cite examples in the US, but there’s an excellent reason for that - armed demonstrations are alien to our culture, and have historically been quite rare.

When large masses of men have assembled with guns to demand political accomodation, it’s been treated as a precursor to revolt, and handled accordingly. Consider the Bonus Army, the Whiskey Rebellion, the aftermaths of the Civil War and WWI. While I agree that it is unlikely any given gun-armed protest will turn violent, it’s far from absurd to be considered about that danger. Thus, I will modify my earlier position, and agree that you have a point - yes, the intimidating character of armed protests is due to the perception that they pose a heightened danger. However, this perception is legitimate.

I would also note that the violent left-wing protests you mentioned actually support my position. I have no support or sympathy for folks who pick up cobblestones or what have you, and throw them at police. However, these incidents demonstrate that even protests that are originally nonviolent can become violent through the addition of improvised weapons, on the spot. To condone a form of protest that comes “ready-made” with exceedingly dangerous weapons seems unlikely to reduce that danger. (By “dangerous”, I merely mean that firearms are more capable of inflicting harm, all else being equal, than stones or sticks.)

Democracy requires that we accept the modest danger any demonstration poses - I fail to see how the public discourse is improved, however, through the addition of firearms. The difference between the dangers posed by an armed and unarmed crowd may only be differences of degree - but differences of degree matter.

[Oakminster]

First Amendment–right to peacefully assemble, free speech, petition government for redress of grievances.

Second Amendment–right to bear arms.

And arguably, openly carrying a weapon to the protest, in and of itself, could be considered a form of speech as well.

Why are liberals so afraid of citizens exercising their constitutional rights?

[Squink]

@Bricker

Given this fact, I’d invite those people to consider that perhaps they are weighing their own fear of firearms so heavily that it is influencing their ability to accurately judge the risks associated with this behavior.

Fear of guns is not even a prerequisite to finding this demonstration disturbing. Mere faith in the stupidity of many of our fellow Americans is sufficient. Had the demonstrators all showed up with riding lawnmowers, or hedgetrimmers rather than guns, simple prudence would suggest giving the group a wide berth.

[Czarcasm]

@Oakminster

First Amendment–right to peacefully assemble, free speech, petition government for redress of grievances.

Second Amendment–right to bear arms.

And arguably, openly carrying a weapon to the protest, in and of itself, could be considered a form of speech as well.

Why are liberals so afraid of citizens exercising their constitutional rights?

Why are you having so much trouble differentiating between Rights and Wisdom?

[yanceylebeef]

@Oakminster

First Amendment–right to peacefully assemble, free speech, petition government for redress of grievances.

Second Amendment–right to bear arms.

And arguably, openly carrying a weapon to the protest, in and of itself, could be considered a form of speech as well.

Why are liberals so afraid of citizens exercising their constitutional rights?

Why are conservatives so fond of little boys?

Broad brushs’ don’t help in debates.

I’m a liberal, and a gun owner. It’s not the “exercising their constitutional rights” that bothers me. It’s the incongruity and irony of doing it in a national park, that the man that they are accusing of “taking away their rights” has just opened up to conceal carry.

Cognitative Dissonance should be painful.

[Oakminster]

@Czarcasm

Why are you having so much trouble differentiating between Rights and Wisdom?

When are you going to answer the questions posed in that ATMB thread I started ? Please do not respond to me again until you have done so.

A link for your convenience.

[Peremensoe]

@begbert2

I doubt you can prove that everyone here’s interacted with armed citizens every day. Heck, a lot of days I hardly interact with anybody.

Apologies for imprecise phrasing. I didn’t mean to say that you necessarily interacted with an armed citizen every day, just that you certainly passed by some, and that the people you did interact with may well have been among the armed portion.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Bone

I dont know if it will or not. I know it has the potential to cause a backlash. The status quo however will likely move as a result of continued similar protest. The protesters probably believe it will move in their favor. Acceptance of gun ownership and gun rights have been increasing in the past several decades so perhaps they are right.

The gun rights movement is gaining ground, albeit slowly. Consider this and the possibility of personal bias when it comes to interpreting the appropriateness of these types of events.

Living in Texas, I know a bunch of gun owners. Some hunt. Others collect fine old shotguns. And some have self-defense issues–they tend to keep their serious armaments in the country.

Considering what most of these teabaggers look like, I’m afraid a bunch of them protesting while armed would promote the same old stereotypes. As in–guess their pencils are out of lead. I’d want to speak to them very soothingly & explain that Obama isn’t planning to take their toys. And any health care plans probably will cover Viagra…

If it came down to Them agin’ the Guv’mint, I think I know who is better armed. (Are none of these guys vets?)

[Der_Trihs]

@Oakminster

First Amendment–right to peacefully assemble, free speech, petition government for redress of grievances.

Second Amendment–right to bear arms.

And arguably, openly carrying a weapon to the protest, in and of itself, could be considered a form of speech as well.

Why are liberals so afraid of citizens exercising their constitutional rights?

Because the right wing is full of thugs. They’ve been attacking people, murdering, attempting to murder, and threatening to murder and you wonder why the left is afraid?

And the modern purpose of the Second Amendment is to eliminate freedom, not support it; to empower those who want to terrorize and kill their opponents, while at the same time make them too weak to be a threat to the power structure. The Second Amendment lovers are helpless against the powerful; they rely on guns and are willing to see their actual rights taken away to protect their right to own the stupid things. But they make great cannon fodder against people the Right doesn’t like, whom they want to brutalize or intimidate.

[Czarcasm]

@Oakminster

When are you going to answer the questions posed in that ATMB thread I started ? Please do not respond to me again until you have done so.

Do you think the right to carry means that it is a good thing to carry at all times, or are there places you personally won’t take a weapon, even if you have the right to do so? This is what I am talking about here-the fundamental difference between Right and Wisdom.

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

Correction: I am saying things like the things I say.

You said this -

when you bring a weapon you are not protesting-you are threatening.

So I did not use “other words”, I used the exact word that you did.

You also chimed in to agree with Zebra’s characterization of gun-carrying protesters as like organized crime and terrorists, calling it an example of Mob Mentality.

Go play the “in other words” game with someone else, please.

I haven’t done that. If you want to distance yourself from what you said, feel free to do so.

Regards,
Shodan

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

First Amendment–right to peacefully assemble, free speech, petition government for redress of grievances.

Second Amendment–right to bear arms.

And arguably, openly carrying a weapon to the protest, in and of itself, could be considered a form of speech as well.

Why are liberals so afraid of citizens exercising their constitutional rights?

Because, having noted that they’re clearly not going to advance any peaceful protest goals by appearing as an armed mob, they logically must be either planning a violent insurrection (unlikely) or be idiots (likely). And I don’t care how safe you tell me guns are, I still think a gun in the hands of an idiot is a bad thing, especially when it’s an emotionally-charged idiot being reduced to an even lower common denominator by herd mentality.

ETA: some sundays I don’t even go outside!

[Oakminster]

@Der_Trihs

Because the right wing is full of thugs. They’ve been attacking people, murdering, attempting to murder, and threatening to murder and you wonder why the left is afraid?

And the modern purpose of the Second Amendment is to eliminate freedom, not support it; to empower those who want to terrorize and kill their opponents, while at the same time make them too weak to be a threat to the power structure. The Second Amendment lovers are helpless against the powerful; they rely on guns and are willing to see their actual rights taken away to protect their right to own the stupid things. But they make great cannon fodder against people the Right doesn’t like, whom they want to brutalize or intimidate.

Same old same old here. Everybody that disagrees with you is wrong, evil, stupid, etc.

Why aren’t you afraid of the left wing loonies? The guys that raise hell whenever there’s a WTO meeting?

[Oakminster]

@Czarcasm

Do you think the right to carry means that it is a good thing to carry at all times, or are there places you personally won’t take a weapon, even if you have the right to do so? This is what I am talking about here-the fundamental difference between Right and Wisdom.

I will say this again, in small words:

Unless and until you respond appropriately in the ATMB thread I’ve already linked, you do not exist to me.

[Czarcasm]

@Oakminster

Same old same old here. Everybody that disagrees with you is wrong, evil, stupid, etc.

Why aren’t you afraid of the left wing loonies? The guys that raise hell whenever there’s a WTO meeting?

What are the chances of an innocent bystander being hurt from a slogan on a protest sign that was aimed at someone else?

[Jas09]

@Oakminster

First Amendment–right to peacefully assemble, free speech, petition government for redress of grievances.

Second Amendment–right to bear arms.

And arguably, openly carrying a weapon to the protest, in and of itself, could be considered a form of speech as well.

Why are liberals so afraid of citizens exercising their constitutional rights?

Second Amendment – right to bear arms.

Sixth Amendment – right to trial by jury, and other rights of the accused.

Why am I not allowed to bring my gun into a courtroom?

[Czarcasm]

@Oakminster

I will say this again, in small words:

Unless and until you respond appropriately in the ATMB thread I’ve already linked, you do not exist to me.

That topic is *off-*topic in this thread.
Do you think that people holding protest signs are as dangerous as people who hold protest signs and arms?

[Oakminster]

@begbert2

Because, having noted that they’re clearly not going to advance any peaceful protest goals by appearing as an armed mob, they logically must be either planning a violent insurrection (unlikely) or be idiots (likely). And I don’t care how safe you tell me guns are, I still think a gun in the hands of an idiot is a bad thing, especially when it’s an emotionally-charged idiot being reduced to an even lower common denominator by herd mentality.

You’re letting your irrational fear/dislike of guns color your reasoning. You see no advances being made by peaceful protesters carrying arms. However, you do not speak for the group that organized the rally. They obviously felt there was some point to be made, and they chose lawful means to make said point.