Jump to content
Turbo

Defending civilians at peaceful protests

Recommended Posts

I've managed to rope myself into a (probably pointless) FB discussion when someone posted a screenshot of someone who posted, effectively, that the "2A Crowd" is silent while the US military steps in. 

Here's the quote.

 

Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'Qasim Rashid for Congress @QasimRashid Me: don't understand why you demand unlimited guns? Right Wing: To defend America when tyrannical Govt deploys the military on American civilians Trump: I'm deploying the US military on American civilians Right Wing:'

 

One can imagine where the conversation has gone

 

I'll preface my post/question with this: I don't want opinions about the people posting on this FB thread, all I'm looking for is FACTS that I can come back with.  I think I'm on pretty stable footing with my position, I don't have my permit (yet) but I know plenty who do and several who CC and I understand that this comes with responsibility and understanding of the law.

 

I don't think people outside of that realm really comprehend these duties, rights, and responsibilities, and it's very difficult to teach them and get them to a level of comprehension while at the same time just even getting past their bias.

 

So this is where I thought I would post on here, to get a few perspectives from various individuals who do indeed understand.

 

Here's a few pertinent snippets of posts in the discussion:

 

My initial comment:

"You’re twisting this. The military is not being deployed to blanket take over America for nefarious intent. It’s being done to stop rioting. Look up the Insurrection Act. It was used in LA during the Rodney King riots. Normally I stay away from challenging these types of posts but quite honestly, I’m really sick of it. The divide in this nation has become so incredibly deep, and this misplaced notions make it worse. I really wish people would stop sharing misleading news links, clickbaity headlines, and stop posting things like this guys’ post that has the outward appearance of humor, but really isn’t funny or accurate.

Honestly, everyone I know who owns a gun pretty much said “about f***ing time” when this was announced. So, yeah. Wrongo."

 

This was followed by a bunch of replies about and examples of the police firing on peaceful protestors.  My replies were generally about "if they're given an order and don't comply, it's not a protest under 1A" etc or "one person throws a brick and it's over".  Of course all are butthurt about the POTUS clearing the crowd for the photo op (I am also) but in this instance, they were also given 3 warnings and did not comply, that's a fact, and you can't just ignore an order and then complain about how you were treated (I'm not throwing that out for debate, just stating my opinion and what I feel is an actual legal position as well)

 

To get it back on track, I posted this:

 

"My point specifically with the OP screenshot was that it makes it sound like the 2A crowd should jump and grab their guns and stand in front of the cops because that’s what the 2A is for and how it should be applied in this situation, and to not do so makes them all hypocrites and then...racists. That’s the implication and I do not agree with that interpretation, nor the broad brush stroke that it makes on so many levels. I think that is very wrong.  Posting things like that do not engage conversation. They push forward the divide." {things like this = the OP meme/screenshot/quote}

 

Then came this response:

 

"Yeah. I think it does that. They have told us over and over again that the 2a is to protect from the government, but when the government attacks citizens, they are silent. Even if there is only one instance you agree with (there are more of course), the 2a crowd is silent. They are not showing up to protests to make sure citizens expressing their rights are safe. "

 

And this, from a fellow that is more inflammatory:

 

"I think you misunderstand their 2A anti-tyranny fantasy. Their fantasy is defending *themselves* and *their family* and *their property* against said tyranny. F*** those other guys. They can defend themselves."

 

To which I replied

 

"^ this is actually accurate, but you scoff at it. 2A is exactly that - protect yourself against tyranny. You seem to imply that 2A supporters and gun owners should show up at a peaceful protest to ensure the protection of other citizens rights? Wow. That’s totally not how it works man...just wow. Maybe you should apply for a permit and then go through a concealed carry training class so you can actually understand what owning and carrying a firearm is actually about. Holy crap."

 

And got a few interesting replies

 

"Interestingly, this seems to be the opposite position that the Black Panthers took. They were all about protecting other citizens."

 

^ I don't know enough about it, but I'm guessing that there are similarities and differences involved - just because someone shows up with guns doesn't mean everything is legal....

 

"perhaps as an American, you should support other citizens from active US tyranny - as the saying goes, first they came for someone else and I did nothing because that wasn’t me. As a 2a person, the point of which is for citizen defense from the government, it seems the impulse to protect rights should be even more compelling.
If people think the 2a is only about protecting theirs, support for
2a positions will erode very quickly. It never occurred to me that it would be the case that 2a supporters are only out to protect themselves. I have been naive, and I think you for opening my eyes to this."

 

Of course, everyone is harping on the Michigan lockdown protest (long guns on the courthouse/capital steps) as an example of how 2A supporters only care about white people and haircuts, and that everyone else including these protestors (the peaceful ones, that is) can go F themselves, you know...the boilerplate tagline response.  I would also be interested in facts about that MI protest as well, I know it's legal to carry long guns in MI but to my knowledge they did not impede anyone from entering the building and were within their rights, but I don't know if they were order to leave by police and did not, etc etc...too many people making this comparison without proper context.

 

so in closing, I'm mainly interested in facts here - law that applies, and situational perspectives about "protecting protestors".  Also accuracy of some of the replies I've received back.

 

I'm not against backtracking my statements that I posted on this fellow's FB thread, I'll admit that I made a few assumptions, though educated ones I feel.

 

I hope this is an informative and interesting discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fed up

They're assuming (I feel) that the rioters and protesters are in the right and being suppressed and miss treated? 

 

Which I counter right or wrong protesting is a guarantee by the bill of Rights as an American so protest all you want. Start throwing explosives (large fireworks I know but explosives none the less) you're not being civil and you have no right to continue doing what you're doing. Start throwing bricks through windows and you're vandalizing others property which you have no right. 

 

So you're in a group/crowd that's mixed with people doing these things, what do you expect to happen to you? You're wearing street clothes like everyone else and indistinguishable from the rest of everyone so yes you're going to be discriminated because the police cannot tell you from anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RevRifleman said:

The 2A Crowd is probably silent because we don't typically view the Military as a hostile force. 

 

If anything, I suspect most 2A supporters trust our Military far more than they do law enforcement.  

 

 

Waco ruby ridge and katrina would disagree with that.  I personally dont want the miltiary rolling around 

 

This is a perfect example of how our side is mostly just blowhards and talk a big game but in reality they do nothing when given a chance to shine.

 

We are patrolling our neighborhood and keeping the local bar safe from antifa. 


“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” – General George S. Patton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Megatron said:

Waco ruby ridge and katrina would disagree with that.  I personally dont want the miltiary rolling around 

 

This is a perfect example of how our side is mostly just blowhards and talk a big game but in reality they do nothing when given a chance to shine.

 

We are patrolling our neighborhood and keeping the local bar safe from antifa. 

 

National Guard is usually seen through a different lens by the American Public.  No disrespect to the National Guard (Same goes for Coast Guard) but they aren't usually the first thing people think of when they think about the Military.  The NG is shared via the state and federal governments... whereas the traditional branches are purely federal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RevRifleman said:

 

National Guard is usually seen through a different lens by the American Public.  No disrespect to the National Guard (Same goes for Coast Guard) but they aren't usually the first thing people think of when they think about the Military.  The NG is shared via the state and federal governments... whereas the traditional branches are purely federal.

 

Well aware of the national guards role.  However after katrina and some of the actions.  You can see why you dont want millitary in town.


“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” – General George S. Patton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RevRifleman said:

The National Guard has already been deployed in numerous locations by the request of governors.  They haven't done anything questionable, yet.  Law Enforcement seems to be the ones doing all the slipping up.  

 

 

Mn guard shot people on their porches.   

 

Remember Waco and Katrina too.  You dont want the militiary involved 


“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” – General George S. Patton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Megatron said:

Mn guard shot people on their porches.   

 

Remember Waco and Katrina too.  You dont want the militiary involved 

 

 

Was that guard or LEO?  I honestly couldn't tell in the video.  Looked like LEO to me if we're talking the same video.  

 

Waco and Katrina were quite some time ago at this point, you keep invoking them, but they don't really apply.  Wanna bring up Kent State or Little Rock 9 while you're at it?  And those were National Guard of those respective states.  Not all guard units are receiving the same orders.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God point not sure why we are so hyper to want the military involved.   Your leos are militarized and stepping on civilians.    Why would you want the militiary. 


“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” – General George S. Patton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are indistinguishable once they gear up.  

 

Why would people want military deployed... not sure.  Might be the fact that their cities are burning down and law enforcement appears to be incapable of doing anything about it.  

 

Only other solution is that the rest of us take the situation to task and handle it ourselves... which I don't see ending any better than if the military deploys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RevRifleman said:

They are indistinguishable once they gear up.  

 

Why would people want military deployed... not sure.  Might be the fact that their cities are burning down and law enforcement appears to be incapable of doing anything about it.  

 

Only other solution is that the rest of us take the situation to task and handle it ourselves... which I don't see ending any better than if the military deploys. 

 

So you mean to tell me.  That after years of talking about the militia and helping the public and fighting for communities.  You rather pass the buck and let someone else do it.  While you go back to the couch and watch a movie.


“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” – General George S. Patton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather us do it.  But if 'us' isn't gunna get our shit together and roll... I'm kinda stuck.  My gear is ready to go.  Heck, I started working out again for the first time in over a decade a year or two ago in preparation for this.  But, I can't do it alone.  Nothing is happening in my town.  Nearest hot spots are all over an hour away.  Not familiar with those regions and have no support in them.  Am willing to go... but, the others in my unit are following orders right now.  

 

I had seven guys ready to roll to protect businesses and we were told to stand down.  

 

We have no centralized leadership or objective.  Antifa, meanwhile, is getting brick resupply in dozens of cities as we speak.  It was recommended that we send out a MERC test here on the forum.  As far as I am aware, no such test has happened yet.  No official statement has been made.  

 

What needs to be done and what can be done are two different things... and I hate that it is like this.  So all I can do is count my ammo, refresh my water, do some exercise, and wait.  It's like fooking Benghazi out there, our decent cops (which some people seem to hate) are getting shot and run over.  Government officials are turning a blind eye, letting looters go, even saying that the cities being burned is a good thing... yes, actual political leaders in various states have said as much.  

 

No, I don't want to pass the buck.  But, by time we get around to doing what we should have been doing last week... they will probably declare Martial Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The rioters are their own militia. They took it upon themselves to pick a fight with the government because they are of the opinion that the United States needs to be destroyed. The existing militias will not join them because the government is not violating the Constitution, and the militias do not believe that the United States should be destroyed. The militias believe that it should be protected.

The rioters are attacking civilians and private property, which makes them straight up criminals. BLM and Antifa are terrorist organizations. None of the militias want to support terrorists. As far as protecting civilians, it is the police and the National Guard who need to protect civilians from the rioters. We should all stay in our own neighborhoods and be ready for an attack where we live. We may need to help our neighbors, but of course we hope that they are armed too.

Edited by RayanneKennan
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted

Thanks everyone for your replies.

 

I wanted to get this back on track though.

 

I wasn't asking about defending rioters or looters, I wasn't asking about joining with any forces to stand up against the police, etc.

 

What I was asking about was standing with those that are peacefully protesting and protecting them from harm caused by the police, or government forces, etc.  This was the "stab" of the quote in my OP.  "where are the second amendment supporters".

 

I don't you about all of you, but I really don't have a problem with the military being brought in to round up looters and rioters in areas where the city is burning night after night.

 

The line gets fuzzy when you have a group that is mostly peaceful with some rowdies who ruin it for everyone by rushing barricades, throwing projectiles, etc.  There are many instances of police overstepping their authority, and though we don't necessarily all know the circumstances, there are reports of direct-fired rubber bullets (which are supposed to be shot at the ground, not direct), things like that.  The Ashville incident with the medical supply tent is another (they had a permit and agreement with the local authorities to be there)

 

After curfew, and/or after notice to disperse has been given, there are A LOT of people who think that they just don't have to follow those orders, because "the constitution applies 24/7".  I'm a constitutionalist myself but there are also other laws, ordinances, emergency orders, etc, that we also have to follow (feel free to correct me if you disagree or can prove me wrong).

 

So the OP quote is pushing the "where are you now" narrative.  The problem is that in the situation where either A) there is a curfew in effect, and it's after that curfew, and/or B) the LEO/etc have broadcast a proper notice to disperse, and in either of both of those instances you do not disperse - what's to defend?  I don't think, as an everyday armed citizen, that I have any legal justifiable position to stand between the LEO/military in that situation and prevent them to doing much at all, beside using outright deadly force where it is not necessary (i.e. one rogue cop popping off citizens with live rounds while everyone else just uses tear gas and pepper spray)

 

Flipping back to a non-curfew situation where most protestors are peaceful, but there are bad eggs, this is more difficult.  Are armed citizens putting themselves in a position of being most likely to be arrested first when the police decide they are going to overstep their authority?  Or is there really anything you can ACTUALLY DO when you see what appears to be overstepping occurring?  I mean, we put a certain level of trust in LEO to make judgement calls based on what they witness, and walking up on a situation that has already unfolded and treating it as potential police brutality and reacting to it as such now puts YOU at risk - not just your freedom or your firearms, but your life.  That's what the OP quote in intending to imply - private citizens who own guns should step in and police the police because that is what is needed now, to prevent the government from taking over the citizens by force.

 

To me there are all kinds of problems with this argument. Specifically, the private citizens with guns HAVE to be the ones to follow orders when given, or they become a threat - so when they order to "disperse" comes, gun holders are the first ones walking away.  Because they are law abiding citizens, and not "peaceful protestors" that are pretending to be abiding the law (but defying orders).

 

Another problem is that, when a private citizen carrying a firearm witnesses police brutality, what exactly are they supposed to do about it?  Pull your weapon and request the officer to stand down in the middle of a high alert situation?  Go stand between the LEO and the citizen "under attack" and potentially be arrested for interference with a police act?  I mean, the OP quote is really pretty ridiculous on many levels but I'm trying to figure out a way to explain that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...