It is wrong to bring guns to a protest

[Czarcasm]

@Jas09

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?

Good question, since a courthouse is full of criminals and potential criminals, it actually makes more sense to bring a weapon to a courthouse than to a protest rally.

[Zebra]

When you say in your political speech “people are going to die”, you are threatening.

If you say that while holding a gun or if you cheer that while holding a gun, you are even more threatening.

Does anyone disagree with this?

[Czarcasm]

@Oakminster

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.

Is everything that is lawful at all times sensible at all times?

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

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.

Fearing a gun in the hands of an emotionally hopped-up moron is PERFECTLY rational. I can’t help it if I’m not bulletproof like you.

And I believe I’ve made an argument that the group that organized the rally is composed of idiots, if they called for the group to be armed. To disprove this you have to show that they had some intelligent rationale for how bringing guns to the rally would lead to a positive result.

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

Do you think that people holding protest signs are as dangerous as people who hold protest signs and arms?

It depends on the people. How many people were injured at this protest as opposed to, say, this one?

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@begbert2

Fearing a gun in the hands of an emotionally hopped-up moron is PERFECTLY rational. I can’t help it if I’m not bulletproof like you.

And I believe I’ve made an argument that the group that organized the rally is composed of idiots, if they called for the group to be armed. To disprove this you have to show that they had some intelligent rationale for how bringing guns to the rally would lead to a positive result.

It would scare the counter-protesters away?

[Oakminster]

@begbert2

Fearing a gun in the hands of an emotionally hopped-up moron is PERFECTLY rational. I can’t help it if I’m not bulletproof like you.

And I believe I’ve made an argument that the group that organized the rally is composed of idiots, if they called for the group to be armed. To disprove this you have to show that they had some intelligent rationale for how bringing guns to the rally would lead to a positive result.

You’ve basically argued that anybody who ever thought about maybe looking at apicture of a gun is a big intimidating meanie head. It’s too silly to dignify with rebuttal. This group of citizens peacefully and lawfully exercised their constitutional rights. Good on them.

[Bricker]

@Mr.Excellent

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.

None of those counter-examples are germane to the United States, where both personal possession of firearms and the right to peaceably assemble are matters of constitutional right.

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 don’t agree.

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.)

And yet when American left-wingers gather armed with nothing, they pick up stones and injure police. When American right-wingers gather already equipped with “exceedingly dangerous” weapons, they don’t use them.

Why do you suppose this is so? You invite the reader to consider the danger apparent in “exceedingly dangerous” weapons, but you don’t actually address this dichotomy except to aver that armed demonstrations are exceedingly rare.

And even that is not so. For the past ten years, groups like the Virginia Citizens Defense League turn out to support or protest certain Virginia laws with respect to Second Amendment rights. They are a far more regular presence than any other group I can recall. In my view, your perception of the number, frequency, and tenor of “armed groups protesting” is drastically skewed.

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

You’ve basically argued that anybody who ever thought about maybe looking at apicture of a gun is a big intimidating meanie head. It’s too silly to dignify with rebuttal. This group of citizens peacefully and lawfully exercised their constitutional rights. Good on them.

I accept your statement that you are unable to think of a rebuttal and thus have conceded the point.

[Bricker]

@begbert2

Fearing a gun in the hands of an emotionally hopped-up moron is PERFECTLY rational. I can’t help it if I’m not bulletproof like you.

Yes, except for the inconvenient fact that I can point to people injured by WTO protesters, and you cannot point to anyone injured by Second Amendment protesters - ever.

[Oakminster]

@begbert2

I accept your statement that you are unable to think of a rebuttal and thus have conceded the point.

You’d be wrong about that. Just like you’re wrong about guns in general, and those that own/carry/use them.

[Der_Trihs]

@Oakminster

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

Who are they attacking and killing? Are they a major force in the left, with support from the highest levels of the Democratic Party?

There is simply no comparison between the two. Violence and the threats of violence from the Right is common, and encouraged at all levels; from the left it’s an aberration; this isn’t the 60s, and even in the 60s the left didn’t have people egging on the violence right up to Congress. And how heavily armed are those WTO protectors you keep harping on? When was the last time they blew up a federal building or assassinated someone, the way the Right has been known to?

[Peremensoe]

@begbert2

I believe I’ve made an argument that the group that organized the rally is composed of idiots, if they called for the group to be armed. To disprove this you have to show that they had some intelligent rationale for how bringing guns to the rally would lead to a positive result.

The participants in this particular event may be idiots. From the perspective of strategically advancing gun rights, deliberate provocation might create more backlash than progress; that remains to be seen. But provocation certainly generates attention, creates debate; it can at least be argued that this increase in public discourse benefits the issue.

[Bone]

@Czarcasm

Good question, since a courthouse is full of criminals and potential criminals, it actually makes more sense to bring a weapon to a courthouse than to a protest rally.

I believe it is because the at the courthouse there exists security to ensure your safety. That is if carrying a weapon is solely for self defense and not a protest in and of itself. In those cases I’ve heard of empty holsters being displayed instead.

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 think it is a good thing for law abiding people who wish to carry, to carry where ever it is legal.

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

It depends on the people. How many people were injured at this protest as opposed to, say, this one?

Regards,
Shodan

Considering the number of people that showed up at that rally, I’d say it was pretty much uneventful, violence-wise, wouldn’t you?
BTW:

The Associate Press’s Verena Dobnik later reported that the NYPD had positioned sharpshooters atop building rooftops. Two rooftop dwellers overlooked the corner of 60th and Second Avenue.

What do you suppose the reaction would be if sharpshooters were spotted on rooftops at these pro-carry rallies?

[Oakminster]

@Der_Trihs

Who are they attacking and killing? Are they a major force in the left, with support from the highest levels of the Democratic Party?

There is simply no comparison between the two. Violence and the threats of violence from the Right is common, and encouraged at all levels; from the left it’s an aberration; this isn’t the 60s, and even in the 60s the left didn’t have people egging on the violence right up to Congress. And how heavily armed are those WTO protectors you keep harping on? When was the last time they blew up a federal building or assassinated someone, the way the Right has been known to?

How come you get to deny all accountability for the left wing lunatic fringe, but expect conservatives to answer for every sin/crime/other unpleasant incident done by any right fringe group?

And please provide a cite for the highest levels of the Republican party supporting violent protests?

[Shodan]

@begbert2

I accept your statement that you are unable to think of a rebuttal and thus have conceded the point.

No, you simply made a remarkably silly and unfounded statement - this one

@begbert2

Because, having noted that they’re clearly not going to advance any peaceful protest goals by appearing as an armed mob

and failed to back it up in any significant way.

It’s like Der Trihs’ silly rants - you don’t have to refute anything that hasn’t been established.

If you want to make a stupid remark and declare yourself winner, that’s fine - it is a gesture of surrender in the battle of wits.

@Czarcasm

Considering the number of people that showed up at that rally, I’d say it was pretty much uneventful, violence-wise, wouldn’t you?

No, I wouldn’t, because it is false.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

Too bad these protesters aren’t polite and unthreatening like the lefties are -

Road flares were thrown into garbage dumpsters, and then the fiery receptacles were pushed into position to to block traffic.

Shop windows were busted. So were police car windows. Protesters threw rocks, bottles, even garbage at the thickening rows of police in riot gear.

Cite.

One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush’s assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.

“BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE,” read the placard, which had an X over the word “ALIVE.”

Cite.

A group of protesters surrounded a car that was trying to enter the meeting and began beating it with their signs and other objects

Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

None of those counter-examples are germane to the United States, where both personal possession of firearms and the right to peaceably assemble are matters of constitutional right.

The examples were to demonstrate culture and human nature, not law or even the respect thereof. Unless you’re trying to say that Americans are fundamentally different from people anywhere else, you’re full of crap there. And if you are saying that, you’re full of crap about that.

When American right-wingers gather already equipped with “exceedingly dangerous” weapons, they don’t use them.

Since you enjoy legal disputation, tell us: What is the definition of assault? What are threats?

In my view, your perception of the number, frequency, and tenor of “armed groups protesting” is drastically skewed.

That from somebody talking about “the left” throwing rocks.

[UltraVires]

The OP has admitted that he doesn’t believe that guns should be carried anywhere in public. Add to that universal list political demonstrations.

I think you are wrong on that count just like you are wrong on your general idea of gun control. Law abiding citizens, as a rule, do not pull out their legally carried guns and start blasting away. This argument gets repeated if we are talking about concealed in public, in restaurants, in bars, in churches, in amusement parks, in schools, in national parks, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now we have to go over it again regarding political demonstrations.