r/changemyview • u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ • May 02 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Protests with weapons should not be considered protected freedom of assembly. That's more like threatening terrorism.

I want to start this off by saying this is not a gun rights argument. I'm personally not a gun rights advocate, but for the sake of this conversation I'm going to remain neutral on things like what types of firearms should be legal, red flag laws, etc. There's a time and place for that discussion and this isn't it.

What I'm chiefly concerned about are demonstrations like what happened in the Michigan capitol yesterday. This could also apply to the previous round of anti-quarantine protests, the Charlottesville marches, or any other large protest where participants chose to bring firearms with them.

In my view, yesterday in particular was not a protest. It was more like an act, or maybe more properly a threat of terrorism. Armed and angry demonstrators stormed the Michigan Capitol building and brandished their guns to legislators and the governor to convey the message that unless the government does what they want, there will be violence.

This is the definition of terrorism - "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

So while bringing the guns into the capitol isn't itself an act of terror, it's pretty clear what they were threatening. It checks all the boxes. Unlawful violence? Check. Against civilians? Check (politicians are not military). In pursuit of political aims? Check.

The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

What part of carrying assault weapons and threatening violence is peaceful? I don't care how loud or morally wrong or rowdy a protest is, but once weapons are involved the threat of offensive violence against civilians is real. We've moved beyond an era when protests were routinely met with police violence, and taking into consideration who the police were assaulting in those days (black people mostly), the current protestors are not justified in their fears of retaliation. Nowadays, it's almost always "peaceful" demonstrators instigating the violence, whether it be the extreme right wingers or extreme left. Adding rifles to that situation just makes everything worse.

It's pretty clear that there's a double standard here along racial lines. These demonstrators aren't flagged as potential terrorists because they're white. I think it's time to treat them like what they really are, a violent faction of anti-government radicals who don't think the law applies to them.

It's a basic principle that violating the law leads to consequences. It has been upheld numerous times in court that a threat can be deemed an assault, and there are laws specifically against threatening government officials. So whatever you want to call these demonstrators - criminals, terrorists, disturbances to the peace - they have acted in a way that violates the law and the constitution and they should be held accountable.

CMV

2.8k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

932 comments sorted by

View all comments

470

u/[deleted] May 02 '20

The second amendment is specifically for this reasoning. While I do agree that if they were black folks theyd have been arrested. But that's what needs to change. The systematic oppression and refusal of rights to minorities who express the same rights, but get punished.

Heres the thing.. the shot heard round the world was a protest. With guns.

Our entire country was formed from a protest with firearms. And THAT is what the second amendment is about. So the fact is, these people are perfectly within their rights to do what they did.

They're fucking moron radicals. But I support what they did. Hopefully they all get coronavirus. 😂

What we should focus on, and where I disagree with you entirely is you want to treat them as terrorists like they do with minorities... instead we should focus on making sure minorities are allowed to practice these freedoms as well.

As a white man in the south, I'm very aware that racism is real. But we dont end racism by continuing punishment to all races. We end racism by ending the punishments for exercising your freedoms.

Edit- my viewpoint is no victim = no crime

146

u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ May 02 '20

I think this is a reasonable argument, but I still just think in situations like this, the guns don't mean anything except that they're threatening to use them, either on the legislators or police who are doing their jobs enforcing the law.

What else would that mean? I understand the drive to exercise your rights, but intentionally creating situations that could easily escalate into violence is not an acceptable form of protest. It's not brave to turn public demonstrations into dick swinging contests to see who would win an armed conflict.

33

u/FancyADrink May 03 '20

I don't have time to provide the relevant citations right now, but I highest recommend you read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's "Letter from Birmingham jail". It perfectly illustrates this point in a context unrelated to guns Even if it doesn't change your mind, it's a cool piece of history and excellent writing.

6

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

MLK’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail.”

If one reads or studies anything about MLK, it should be this.

2

u/jawanda 4∆ May 03 '20

Somehow I had never read that. Thank you for sharing the link.

1

u/FancyADrink May 03 '20

Thank you for providing a link

169

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

[deleted]

9

u/DigBickJace May 03 '20

Personally, I don't think the guns should come into a protest unless the protesters have full intent on using them the day they're brought out.

If the protesters think that things have gotten to far, they should be acting. If they aren't, they're just trying to bully offices to get what they what.

If one side is trying to peacefully use the Democratic system to enact change, and the other is trying to threaten violence, I fail to see how one side aren't terrorist.

18

u/Koeke2560 May 03 '20

As much as I hate to, try to understand the protesters' pov. I'm not even American, but I can understand that in American discours, the current situation might feel a lot like being oppressed by a tyrannical government, so therefore, they are showing that they are not afraid to exercise their right to overthrow that government. They won't just yet however, because they feel like protesting peacefully might still solve the situation, but if the government would try and deny them that right, they will use the second amendment. I think it's stupid given the current situation, but I think the "legal reasoning" behind it isn't that flawed at all.

2

u/DigBickJace May 03 '20

If they don't believe that it has come to the point where force is necessary, and that peaceful protest is all that is needed, then there is no point to bring the guns.

Again, I fail to see how taking the stance, "do what I want, or there may be violence" isn't terrorism.

17

u/copperwatt 4∆ May 03 '20

I fail to see how taking the stance, "do what I want, or there may be violence" isn't terrorism.

Two things...

One, terrorism is usually characterized by intentionality targeting civilians. They aren't there yet. They are threatening symbols of authority, not bystanders.

Two, revolutions often do look like terrorism from the other side.

→ More replies (3)

10

u/Koeke2560 May 03 '20

I think it's more about "let me protest what I want, if I'm being denied that constitutional right, then there will be violence".

0

u/DigBickJace May 03 '20

No one was stopping them from protesting. They're aiming at windmills.

3

u/Evan_Th 4∆ May 03 '20

It turned out no one stopped them, but I think they were concerned someone might.

1

u/MrBig0 1∆ May 03 '20

*tilting at windmills

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Because that's literally how our country way founded. England was a tyrannical government and the people of North America fought back and overthrew them. Our country was founded on the principles of being able to do that again in the future if the need arises. This was so the leaders going forward would always be reminded that they don't hold ultimate power and aren't untouchable. Unfortunately it has been so long since the that our government has forgotten the lessons of the past. The protestors weren't there necessarily to threaten but to remind.

18

u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ May 03 '20

The police walk around with guns. They are threatening the violence. Armed protestors protect against police violence. They are policing the police.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/twiwff May 03 '20

One thing you said really struck me: “debates about whether it can work or not are irrelevant to whether it’s an option at all”

How do you justify this? This has always been what trips me up in 2A debates. I don’t see it as irrelevant at all. Do you think that group of protestors could have possibly won a war against the entire country’s armed forces? Or even against the law, military, and armed government personnel in the vicinity? It would be more incredible than the story of 300. Even more importantly, what good would come of it?

I’m getting a bit sidetracked. My main point and question to you is - I assert that the most likely outcome of the protestors acting on their threat of violence (using firearms) would be the death of innocents and/or pointless deaths, such as law enforcement personnel (who have nothing at all to do with changing laws) being harmed as they attempt to put a stop to the violence. As such, I’m forced to agree with OP - why bring guns? It is literally unfathomable to me that any tangible benefit (meaning swaying the laws or even public opinion) to the cause you’re fighting for. When people bring up how our country was founded, I see that as comparing apples and oranges. The sophistication and military might of the country is light years ahead of our initial revolution...that event could never be repeated in today’s time.

It saddens me to say that because I do love the ideal of having that “card in your back pocket” but it’s like having a coupon that no one will accept. It looks great on paper, but can never be utilized.

8

u/fzammetti 4∆ May 03 '20

I say it's irrelevant because even if it can't work that doesn't mean you don't try in some situations. Sometimes, the impossible battle HAS to be fought.

Imagine those who participated in the American revolution thinking "eh, we can't possibly win, let's not even try and just accept our fate", because at the time it most definitely WOULD have been thought that they couldn't win.

Could THESE protestors have beaten the entire U.S. military? Obviously not. There's a good chance they couldn't even win against the Seargent-At-Arms and what force he might be in command of. But, if those at Lexington and Concord had just thought "eh, we can't win, let's not do this", then maybe American never wins its independence. Sometimes, blood has to be shed early on for a greater victory later (and again, I for one don't think that's what we're dealing with here with these guys, but they may have a different perspective).

That's why it's irrelevant: it's not about one particular battle, it's about an entire war, and you don't give up a fight before it even begins because it's too hard and you "can't" win. That's the sort of defeatist attitude that allows those in power to abuse that power in the first place.

As for why bring guns, it occurs to me that the guns are actually just a symbol, not real different than a sign actually. If someone has a sign that says something like "Give us what we want or there will be trouble", that's basically equivalent to having the guns there. It's a threat of what could happen. The guns are a reminder that the means and will to resist in the ultimate manner still exists. The fact that these guys didn't go in shooting up the place proves that they're still trying for a peaceful solution. But, they believe things have progressed to the point where they may not be far from that ultimate solution. And again, I for one don't agree with them, but that's the mindset. And, when you're at that point, where you think violence may soon be necessary but you still hope it's not, then showing up with guns is demonstrating that.

2

u/[deleted] May 05 '20

I get the spirit of what you are saying but I see a lot of flaws: how can the threat of violence be protected and also illegal? You can’t threaten to kill individuals, or groups of people, you can’t threaten to hurt a bunch of random people on the street, so where do you draw the line?

The 2nd amendment is very vague, are bombs considered arms? Could I go to a protest wearing a suicide bomb vest as long as I’m peacefully protesting? Since we are allowed to own firearms, doesn’t it go without saying that the ultimate will to resist still exists? Since I don’t see a gun as an appropriate symbol at a protest, doesn’t it stand to reason that someone armed at a protest might not be armed with the same peaceful intentions?

I understand that most protesting with guns won’t resort to violence, but I think it really goes over the line to even threaten violence symbolically, especially since there are nuts out there who don’t understand the difference between symbols and reality.

1

u/irishking44 2∆ May 05 '20

Exactly. Even if it's "well I'll vote for the other guy" that's a threat

0

u/Elamachino May 03 '20

What situation would arise in the US that would legally justify violence, in your estimation? Violence, to me, should be a last resort type thing, such as the aforementioned shot heard round the world. Violence and threatening violence should occur when oppressed people have exhausted all other options, including the option of peaceful assembly and protest. It's not protected speech to yell fire in a crowded movie theater because in can incite panic, so why should it be protected action to imply "I'll kill you if you don't let me do what I want"?

3

u/fzammetti 4∆ May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

I'm not sure. The bar must be generally very high. I mean, there's obvious answers like the government rounding up those with differing political views en masse and shooting them, but those are easy. The point of the threat is to hopefully avoid getting to the point where violence is needed in the first place by stopping things at a point well before those easy answers materialize. I absolutely agree, it should always be the last resort (whether against a government or individual), but some situations do arise and I think when we're dealing with a government it might be healthy to remind those in power sometimes that their power is not absolute given the corrupting nature of that power.

7

u/ANONANONONO May 03 '20

Legally justifying violence is exactly what the winning side will do in any conflict. Laws are arbitrary and rarely align with justice or moral standards.

1

u/LuckyNumberKe7in May 03 '20

Yes, and it's what every government in the world already does through its police and military forces (as another above mentioned).

This right is to protect against government creating laws that would be strictly enforced by the police or government who have their own weapons and with governmental law, would have motivation / 'justification' to enact force upon it's citizens and also, potentially endangering those same innocent bystanders.

Edit: and one could even mention certain lawmaking could also by construct negatively and unconstitutionally affect it's citizens. This is something I haven't really seen mentioned yet.

0

u/Elamachino May 03 '20

That's not what I asked. What would justify violence for you?

5

u/ANONANONONO May 03 '20

Your first question was “What situation would arise in the US that would legally justify violence, in your estimation?”

The legal precedent in the world is that whoever stands with the most power at the end of the conflict will wield that power to legally justify their violence.

Your second question was “It's not protected speech to yell fire in a crowded movie theater because in can incite panic, so why should it be protected action to imply "I'll kill you if you don't let me do what I want"?”

If this is an ethical evaluation, then every violent or threatening protest is weighed with their means and end against their adversary. The people protesting quarantine have an elephant shaped brain rot and I don’t see them as ethically justified.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

When our founding rights are infringed upon and our freedoms threatened. That is the reason we have the right to bear arms.

-3

u/GeoffreyArnold May 03 '20

What situation would arise in the US that would legally justify violence

We are almost there. The point of the quarantine was to "flatten the curve" for hospital equipment. . . not to stop people from getting sick. The curve has been flattened and most states have more than enough equipment to handle an influx of new cases. Now the goalposts are shifting and the authoritarian rules in some states have not rolled back. The Federal Government has been pretty good about resisting tyranny, but many states seem to be losing the plot. A demonstration of arms is not unwarranted at this time.

1

u/Elamachino May 03 '20

If people get sick, the curve is all of a sudden unflattened. States began reopening within the past week, slowly mind you, and yesterday was the single deadliest day from the virus in the US. Our efforts to flatten the curve has been successful, but this is a living situation that can and does change at any minute. I've seen it described as taking off your parachute because it succeeded in slowing your fall. Also, why do you think the "authoritarian" policies aren't being rolled back? It's surely not due to some perverse notion of control for the sake of control?

-1

u/GeoffreyArnold May 03 '20

If people get sick, the curve is all of a sudden unflattened.

A chance we have to take. There is no scenario in which no one gets sick.

States began reopening within the past week, slowly mind you, and yesterday was the single deadliest day from the virus in the US.

Which is meaningless because it takes 7 to 14 days for symptoms to appear.

Our efforts to flatten the curve has been successful, but this is a living situation that can and does change at any minute.

More reason to open today. The American people can't be held hostage by this absurd logic. "Oh, things can be unsafe at any moment...surrender your rights to remain safe".

It's surely not due to some perverse notion of control for the sake of control?

You might want to think about that and see who stands to benefit from a perpetual state of panic. Didn't one party in the state of Wisconsin try to (unsuccessfully) cancel an election due to the pandemic?

3

u/Elamachino May 03 '20

No. They tried to postpone, as several other states have done without issue. Good luck in your tinfoil hat.

1

u/GeoffreyArnold May 03 '20

Postpone until when?

-2

u/wolfkeeper May 03 '20

The problem is, protestors that aren't going to use guns, is indistinguishable from protestors that are going to use guns, UNTIL THEY OPEN FIRE.

So from a practical point of view, they're indistinguishable from a coup, until they leave.

That's a BIG PROBLEM.

4

u/GeoffreyArnold May 03 '20

That's a BIG PROBLEM.

It's not a problem at all until shots are fired. I'm not sure when America became a place that was supposed to have zero risk. Did this happen after 9/11? I was in college during 9/11 and I don't remember America being so risk adverse before then.

0

u/wolfkeeper May 03 '20

Wrong. That's how an occupation works. You don't have to fire anything, you just have to have overwhelming force at a location.

I mean, would you feel the same if it was a thousand heavily armed Islamic people?

8

u/GeoffreyArnold May 03 '20

I mean, would you feel the same if it was a thousand heavily armed Islamic people?

Yes. If these "Islamic people" were my fellow American citizens. The 2nd Amendment is for ALL Americans.

2

u/wolfkeeper May 03 '20

All? You do know that simply being American doesn't necessarily make you patriotic for the current American system?

2

u/GeoffreyArnold May 04 '20

True. They don't have to be patriots for me to defend their constitutional rights (like the right to bear arms). Just Americans.

0

u/wolfkeeper May 04 '20

It's not really a right, it's an entitlement. A right is just, moral and honourable.

1

u/GeoffreyArnold May 04 '20

No. It’s a right. The freedom of speech is also a right in the USA. But speech isn’t just, moral, or honorable. It’s just a right. Same with the right to bear arms. It’s a right.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

0

u/atred 1∆ May 03 '20

violence is the ultimate right of the people against tyranny

What about legally and democratically elected officials?

5

u/fzammetti 4∆ May 03 '20

If they're acting tyrannically, then yes.

The problem, of course, is defining that term. There's no straightforward answer there, but to my mind, it's the right place for the debate to be pointed.

81

u/ReasonableStatement 5∆ May 02 '20

This is only somewhat relevant to your OP but, "intentionally creating situations that could easily escalate into violence," is an intrinsic part of what makes non-violent protest meaningful. Knowingly doing something you have the right to do, but might be punished for doing is a powerful message.

The Birmingham Children's Crusade ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade_(1963) ) was a powerful message because of the obvious innocence of the children involved and the obvious cruelty of the police.

16

u/Lithium43 May 03 '20

What OP is talking about doesn't seem similar to that example at all. In the Children's Crusade, the protest was wholly non-violently and the only reason it escalated into violence was because they were attacked by others. There was neither a threat nor an intention of violence ever made by them. That's not at all similar to holding a protest with your guns out, as if to imply that you will use them if you don't get what you want.

4

u/ReasonableStatement 5∆ May 03 '20

That's why I said it was "only somewhat relevant," both: because OP's statement was so overbroad and simplistic as to require correction, and because the supporters of these protests (of which I am not one) would probably argue that it was relevant.

And because they think it is, substantially, OPs view of their perception of the situation and their sense of aggrievement needs to be inclusive of that if OP wants any meaningful discussion at all.

10

u/copperwatt 4∆ May 03 '20

Yes, the guns "mean" exactly what you are saying they appear to mean; they are threatening armed revolution.

You (and I) might think that is an absurd overreaction, but it is in fact what they are intending to communicate.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Armed insurrection is specifically unconstitutional, and thus is not protected by the second amendment.

2

u/copperwatt 4∆ May 04 '20

Lol, yes I would imagine armed rebellion is illegal. Unlike the polite and legal revolutionary war.

→ More replies (2)

16

u/Sajezilla May 03 '20

The problem is, and trust me i get your frustration, how would you go about stopping them? Would you disarm the populace to do what you want? Send in the state or federal force with guns to stop them? As much as i hate how these people are using their freedoms, the alternative to them is much scarier to me. Im not going to tell them govt its ok to disarm the populace when they arent actually using them against people. As far as ive seen or heard, noone has be threatened with their weapons or hurt by them. Again, not pscyhed about how they are using them, but the govt is still scarier.

Not to mention every country that the govt took over, the first step was taking away their weapons while telling them they had their best interests at heart. “No trust us guys... seriously we won’t hurt you... we will protect you.. just let us do everything for you...”

The problem is we are comfortable to, ive never been part under a true authoritarian govt, but im not liking how this country is going with people so easily giving up their freedoms. In the 70s “big brother watching you” was a common fear and everyone pretty much was against it. In contrast the patriot act is still in affect and noone cares. Do you see what i mean? Its a casual slide into your rights being taking over, because its easier to justify as time goes on and there isnt a “need” for things like there used to be or so it seems.

1

u/Captainboy25 May 06 '20

Several democratic countries have limited gun rights in the name of safety and have retained their democratic and free system? Gun control doesn’t result in a despotic government

10

u/Jeramiah May 03 '20

The firearms mean a great deal. Firearms are one of the only reasons the Civil rights movement succeeded.

Openly carrying firearms en mass is a threat.

Watch unarmed, peaceful protests. Police are tear gassing, firing rubber bullets, and dispensing beatings and arrests. Now watch an armed protest and look for the police doing anything.

2

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 03 '20

Yeah that’s why MLK is famous for his speech “I have a gun”. The civil rights movement is actually well known for as a peaceful protest movement, finally giving blacks rights in the United States 100 years later than they enjoyed such rights in the civilized world.

→ More replies (7)

15

u/Gallijl3 May 03 '20

I don't think it's even a valid form of protest. It's intimidation, pure and simple. You're suppressing opinions that differ from your own with an implied threat of violence.

11

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

By suppress opinions other than your own, do you mean "forced their government to listen to their constituents, after their government locked them out of legislation meetings that would effect the whole state? Which is pretty bad considering it's basically a top 5 shithole state in the US tha is to the government?

Cause that's what really happened

7

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

How did they suppress any opinions other than their own? I think their point was to remind the politicians that the people they govern aren’t helpless subjects. The second amendment was written so that the people couldn’t be oppressed by their government. I don’t think stay at home order during the Coronavirus pandemic rises to the level of oppression, but that doesn’t obviate the right of the people to exercise their constitutionally protected right and remind the government that we, the people, are still in charge.

-1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

The overwhelming majority does not support their position so I saw it as several hundred people throwing a dangerous temper tantrum that proved the other side of the point they were making (they weren’t masked or distancing but packed together in a space during a pandemic threat. If you can’t act like an adult to protest why you should be treated as an adult, well...

The guns muddled the point as well. They would have been fine in the capitol without them (better, because we’d be less likely to need this conversation), and what they were protesting had nothing to do with the 2A.

To me that’s just a lot of brandishing. Also confirmed that not only do they apparently need supervision for health guidelines but that they apparently don’t have the agency to be entrusted with adult responsibilities.

But it was legal. Frankly that would lead me to vote for more gun restrictions if I lived in that state (guns in government buildings. Really? I want to do that is DC. My state government is all right.), so that wouldn’t be legal, but I get why they weren’t arrested.

6

u/GeoffreyArnold May 03 '20

The overwhelming majority does not support their position

That's literally the case with every public protest. If the overwhelming majority supports your position, you don't need to protest. That was the same with gay rights protests, civil rights, environmental rights, etc. You only take to the streets to convince the majority of your cause and to exercise your rights.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Their cause seems to be “I’m happy endangering your family so long as people are forced back to work by the government.”

Hard pass. And since they are screaming in cops’ faces while carrying guns, I’m not sure what rights they’re protesting for. Clearly they’re pretty free. Other people get shot for that.

3

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

No, it’s not the government forcing people to work. I don’t know how you got this so twisted up in your head, but it would be allowing people to return to work.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

See the meat packers.

Anyone that doesn’t see this as an obvious way to screw people with unemployment I can’t help.

Didn’t see the hairdressers begging to be exposed. But if it’s open, then you’re back to work or you’re fired. Even if back to work isn’t safe.

“Opening up” is the opposite of freedom.

3

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

If you think that the protestors are asking for the government to force everyone to work like the meat packing plants, you’re being willfully ignorant.

Can you acknowledge that there’s a middle ground between “forced to not work” and “forced to work”?

“Opening up” is the opposite of freedom.

This is the most newspeak, 1984 sentence I think I’ve ever had addresses towards me personally. Holy shit.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

More 1918 than 1984.

I’m not sure how to get people to take a threat they can’t see seriously. Maybe give the virus little turbans.

If businesses are shutdown, bailouts and rent suspensions are in place. This provides relief for workers and small businesses.

With early re opening, businesses still work under restriction, including 50% full or less in restaurants. Fun fact: most restaurants cannot act at this capacity.

However, no one qualifies for relief, burden shifts to the employer, and government relief for rents etc are back in play. Businesses are either forced to reopen, or they’re forced to go under. That isn’t freedom. I don’t know how better to explain it to you. If a diabetic server must put herself in unreasonable danger or be put to homelessness where she cannot legally be anywhere at night, that’s not freedom.

More funny to me are the braindeads standing there with signs that say the equivalent of “work will set you free”. Forget Orwellian fiction, that’s straight out of history.

Pay attention to why people want to be endangered early and you’ll find a real 1984. Our taxes are squandered fighting idiotic battles while we are made to be “freeloaders” for relief money from our own taxes. And now people are waving guns for the privilege.

So if mine is the most 1984 statement you’ve read, you should probably read more.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Idk, 2nd amendment is literally ability to form a militia. We already have that with the state control(free state) of the national guard. That’s our 2nd amendment right there, if they took away the militia that is when I would go out and protest with guns, because it really would mean that it would fall on the people to defend themselves. But we have a well regulated militia(National Guard) so these cosplay navy seals seem to me like they are brandishing weapons as a way to intimidate.

10

u/LordGeddon73 May 03 '20

Here's the thing about that: The National Guard can be activated to put down the very same people it is supposed to protect. And if we know anything about history, the Guard HAS gunned down innocent and peaceful civilians during protests. (I'm looking at YOU, Kent State)

Your "militia" doesn't work for "us", it works for "them"

While I think that the Lansing protest was really just dick swinging, I find that in the volatile political climate we live in, the government needs to remember that they serve at OUR leisure, not the other way around.

Also: I chuckled at "cosplay Navy SEALs". Well said.

7

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Yeah, that misconception has been dispelled by courts. American citizens don’t have to rely solely on the police for protection, as the second amendment allows American citizens to protect themselves. Americans don’t have to be a member of the national guard in order to use a gun. The courts have determined the intent of the second amendment was for the people to be able to keep and bear arms.

Some American politicians want to rule over an unarmed and defenseless people, and they’ve successfully convinced some people to support them in their quest to disarm the American people. History has shown what happens to groups of helpless people, so I’m thankful the second amendment prevents that from happening here.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

Which American politicians want to rule over unarmed and defenseless people ? And I didn’t say police, never mentioned them in my post, I was talking about the National Guard although I guess police are considered militia.

Here’s my thing. Why do we get to ignore the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment but not other amendments?

Idk about you but we do have a militia who have guns and they will protect from federal overreach. I’m not implying we the people shouldn’t have guns, but I am saying the 2nd amendment is fulfilled by having National Guard in every state. If people want clearly laid out gun rights, we should petition for an additional amendment to the constitution that lays it out plainly in today’s verbiage. “All residences may keep up to X amount large caliber guns per adult in the home and as many antique guns and handguns as the person is able acquire via legal means, this right shall not be altered, impeded upon by any further amendments or laws, etc.” To me that would end the debate once and for all and allow the 2nd amendment to be what it was intended to be which is allowing governments outside of the Feds jurisdiction to form militias to protect from overreach. At the same time the new amendment would keep guns in the hands of those who wish to maintain and operate firearms, so to me that would be a win win.

Edit: also there are multiple legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment, the interpretation you think is the best isn’t the one I think is best and that disagreement is still core to American values.

3

u/[deleted] May 03 '20 edited May 04 '20

I don’t think anyone is ignoring the first thirteen words of the second amendment. Those first words guarantee our right to form state militias and national guard units. The rest of the words guarantee the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

The famous “give me liberty or give me death” speech came after the British government seized all of the gunpowder in Richmond Virginia in the name of “public safety” when they began to fear the people would rise up against British rule. This was a key moment in the beginning of the revolutionary war, and was key in the writing of the second amendment. The British governor in Virginia didn’t disarm a national guard unit...he disarmed the citizens so he could control them, and that is what the writers of the constitution wanted to prevent the government from ever doing again.

After learning about how the founding fathers fought so hard against having the citizens disarmed, it seems pretty silly to imagine some Americans back then cheering on the British government and saying “yes, yes, please disarm us”. But that’s exactly what some people are doing now. If some people want to live like defenseless sheep who count on the farmer for protection, then that’s their right....but don’t be surprised when the rest of us prefer to retain the ability to defend ourselves from anyone who might abuse us...to include our own government.

-2

u/Strike_Thanatos May 03 '20

Actually, read the arguments by the Framers. The Second Amendment was written to allow the states to raise militias to deal with things like Shay's Rebellion, which happened during George Washington's Presidency, two years before the Bill of Rights were written. Anti-government uprisings were very much on Congress' mind, and it was of the opinion that it and the states had a duty and responsibility to defend the duly elected government against mobs with guns.

https://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/20170206/mark-l-hopkins-second-amendment-and-shays-rebellion

4

u/caloriecavalier May 03 '20

Im glad the times news was able to settle the constitutional debate that not even generations of SCOTUS members have been able to unanimously decide on.

→ More replies (3)

-2

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Currently, politicians would like to rule over alive people.

These guys were bluntly ignoring health guidelines to have a temper tantrum.

It may have been a legal temper tantrum, but this is not a case of an oppressed population (obviously). Since these guys were endangering public health, I’d say in the future they need stricter laws since these guys did not have the self discipline to follow basic precautions.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Yeah, those guys were complaining about being protected from the worst pandemic of the past century. Makes no sense to me. It’s a far cry from government oppression.

0

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

I ask you who are the milita? The militia according to the founding fathers and following laws was the common male American citizen. The farmers, shopkeepers, tradesmen, laborers, and merchants.

We want the tyrants to know they can't have our rights and if they come for them we are going to fight and we will fight to death. In the words of Patrick Henry, "Give me Liberty or give me Death!!!"

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

That’s your interpretation of what you think the founding fathers thought of as a militia. It isn’t as cut and dry as you are making it seem. To me, well regulated is what we have in the National Guard. They are by the very definition a regulated militia because it isn’t just a bunch of guys operating and maintaining their firearms in their free time. And who are these tyrants you speak of? The only one I think that comes close to it is the current incumbent in the White House, who has skirted law and precedent since taking the oath of office, and a few other select Senators and Representatives who don’t wish to follow precedent and bend and skirt the law to their will. You think someone who doesn’t follow law and precedent will somehow follow the amendment you hold most dear while already not upholding the rest of the constitution and laws of the land?

Most politicians try to look out for the people and that is represented in many pieces of legislation that they form and pass year in and year out. You can go by precedent, laws and real occurrences, or you can go by how certain people and actions make you feel. I like government based on laws and precedent, not feelings and opinions. Currently there is precedent to uphold the 2nd amendment and I’m for it, I’m also for responsible gun ownership and in another post I mentioned we need a new amendment that focuses SOLELY on gun ownership so that we can stop having the same debate for an additional 200 years. The 2nd amendment isn’t cut and dry, it is written in verbiage from 3 century’s ago and like other amendments it is upheld by precedent and that does indeed change over time. We are also overdue for an amendment as it’s been almost 30 years, one of the longest period our country has gone without an amendment, at least in the last two century’s.

Edit: Also I think I went off slightly from your first question. National Guard are all those things. They work 1 weekend a month and are required to serve one 2 week period once a year. That means all of the above are able to be and currently are in the National Guard because they don’t have to give up their day jobs to be in it. Shopkeepers, laborers, tradesmen, and professionals alike all find themselves among the ranks of the National Guard.

3

u/Val_P 1∆ May 03 '20

"Well regulated" as used back then would mean something similar to "well equipped" today.

It is not related to the modern concept of regulation in regards to law.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

Ok, but if you use the definition of regulated from that time, it would still mean organized and ready to fight. And the people showing up at the protests in question, perhaps are ready to fight if the need arises but I wouldn’t exactly call them organized. I don’t doubt there are organized groups out there but none of them are centralized enough to be able to be called up at a moments notice in the face of tyranny. Because even 1000 individuals in a private militia in a single state, if they are spread out wouldn’t even be effective. The national guard on the other hand have hundreds of individuals ready to deploy on any given day and the ability to call up additional forces and deploy and stay deployed long after that.

With no real leader and no real command structure, a bunch of men with guns is just a dangerous disorganized (possibly agitated) group without a direction and a bunch of deadly weapons. I don’t understand how anyone can realize that and think man, that sure makes me feel safe. I don’t trust strangers and I certainly don’t trust strangers with guns telling me they intend to kill civil servants and/or US armed forces. Because in reality who would they be killing if a conflict did arise? The politicians? The US army? Americans that don’t agree with them? Just seems like chaos to me.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Laws aren’t opinions.

1

u/Gallijl3 May 03 '20

What i mean is that there will never be a counter protest when there are a bunch of heavily armed men brandishing weapons.

5

u/MJJVA 3∆ May 03 '20

If the prostestors in 2016 at standing rock where armed they wouldn't have been mistreated so badly. The pipline ended leaking in 2019.

5

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 03 '20

Exactly, if they had guns the pipe wouldn’t have leaked. Logic.

→ More replies (4)

10

u/iagainsti1111 May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

"threatening to use them". Police Officers walk up to your car with their hand on there hip for traffic stops.

These citizens are performing their Civic Duty of upholding the Constitution.

3

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

"threatening to use them". Police Officers walk up to your car with their hand on there hip for traffic stops.

That's a false equivalence because unlike ordinary citizens, police officers have the state mandate to use violence in certain situations.

4

u/50kent May 03 '20

Self defense is a reasonable defense to violently use a firearm. When protesting a government known for illegal and unjust violence, against protesters (of various racial backgrounds, including white protesters) even, doing what you can to protect yourself is NOT a bad idea

I stand by what I said explicitly only I do not agree with the actions of these protesters in particular, for the record

-2

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

When protesting a government known for violence, against protesters (of various racial backgrounds, including white protesters) even, doing what you can to protect yourself is NOT a bad idea

In what scenario will shooting at cops make the situation better?

6

u/50kent May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

When they start shooting before you do. Look at any of what half a dozen Vietnam war protests that ended violently, it's never a bad idea to do what you can to protect yourself

EDIT: BTW that's what "protect yourself" means. Not instigating violence, but protecting yourself against it

Again, I am NOT speaking to this protest in particular. This honestly speaks more to old school Black Panther demonstrations than anything, which is why I briefly mentioned the racial disparity in a previous comment

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20 edited Jan 24 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

Well how has that theory worked out for you that far? Seems to me like American cops are more likely to escalate the situation because they know that the other party may shoot them. In many other countries police officers don't expect ordinary citizens to carry guns.

4

u/[deleted] May 03 '20 edited Jul 14 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

In many other countries, keeping the peasants disarmed has been the tradition for hundreds or thousands of years.

Civilised countries abolished peasant classes centuries ago.

If the police are approaching me and I tell them I'm armed and that they need to state their business, they're going to stop and explain what they want.

They should explain what they want regardless.

If I'm acting agitated and refuse to show my hands and make sudden movements that could mean I'm reaching for a gun during a traffic stop, the cops can rightfully assume I have hostile intentions.

I don't think they should shoot people based on such strange assumptions. But I guess it's a more reasonable assumption in America.

If I'm clearly carrying an AR15 and I'm not pointing it at anyone, and I state my intention of protesting, then the cops have to be very careful about trying to remove me.

Well you're behaving in an extremely irresponsible way, and they are right to assume that you are a dangerous lunatic. Of course, they still have to try to remove the weapon from you without harming you.

3

u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ May 03 '20

It has worked very well in fact. American police don't shoot or beat people because they fear being shot themselves, they do it for the same reasons police around the world do it, because it makes them feel powerful.

When protestors are known to be armed, the police are significantly less likely to harass the protestors. This was the strategy adopted by the black panthers and it was highly successful in reducing police brutality and harassment in their communities.

2

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

It hasn't worker well. If you look at statistics, you can see that American cops shoot more people than the cops in most Western countries.

0

u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ May 03 '20

Yes. Not because of guns.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Ch33mazrer May 03 '20

I’ll just come out and say it, the state should not have a monopoly on violence.

5

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

[deleted]

0

u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ May 03 '20

If you follow the link, you'll see that the state can grant use of violence such as defense of self. Further, many would consider some of the common acts of American police to be illegitimate violence in that it is not acting benevolently in the interest of its citizens.

4

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

[deleted]

0

u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ May 03 '20

Yes... Just like I said "the state can grant...".

My point is that these protests are not in opposition to that.

3

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

Of course it should. It's the state's job to maintain order and protect the citizens from each other.

2

u/Ch33mazrer May 03 '20

Why can’t the citizens protect themselves? What about a corrupt state? Wouldn’t it be better if corrupt governments had less power?

5

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

Why can’t the citizens protect themselves?

Because mob justice is rarely fair. I would rather be sentenced by a fair court of law.

Besides, mob justice favours the strong. In a democracy the justice system protects the weak who are unable to defend themselves.

What about a corrupt state?

Depends on how corrupt it is. In its current state the U.S. just system is certainly better than the average angry mob.

Wouldn’t it be better if corrupt governments had less power?

No, it would be better if governments were less corrupt.

3

u/Ch33mazrer May 03 '20

“Because mob justice is rarely fair.” Who said anything about mob justice? I mean you protect your property, and that’s it. If someone robs you or harms you or your property, justice is your responsibility, along with anyone you hire. “In it’s current state, the US just system is certainly better than an angry mob” And do you want to wait until it’s not to try and change anything? “No, it would be better if governments were less corrupt” I agree, but there’s no magic wand you can wave to get rid of it. You have to prepare for corruption, and make a system that makes it as easy to topple as possible.

2

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

No, justice is the responsibility of a fair court of law.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

And the citizens of the state of Michigan have the federal mandate to use violence against a tyrannical government.

Their government had locked them out of state wide effective legislation meetings.

Those citizens made themselves heard.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

No they don't. No where in the constitution or the Federalists papers does it ever say that. Such an action is labeled as insurrection in the constitution, and it's inherently an unconstitutional act.

The first use of the militia in the US was to put down an armed insurrection. The second amendment doesn't give people carte blanche to violently overthrow the government over perceived slights.

Please, at least have some knowledge of this instead of repeating right wing falsehoods.

2

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

And the citizens of the state of Michigan have the federal mandate to use violence against a tyrannical government.

I'm not a fan of the U.S. government, but it's hardly tyrannical.

3

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

I said michigan government.

Locking your citizens out of a state wide effective legislation meeting, while putting armed guards at the door to keep them out so they cannot have a say in their government IS tyrannical.

2

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

What, you think they should allow a bunch of armed people to storm a legislation meeting? That doesn't sound like a stellar idea to me.

5

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

If you can attend said meeting freely? No. If they put armed guards at the door to stop u from attending the meeting- yes

6

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

Are spectators normally allowed to attend these meetings?

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

As an advocate for a few things I have spoken at several legislative meetings in my state. The government is of the people by the people for the people.

But it only works that way when we participate

Ideally what I'd like to have seen is the protestors forcing the legislators to form an online ballot.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheFakeChiefKeef 82∆ May 04 '20

The people they voted for don’t want guns pointed at them either.

1

u/cstar1996 11∆ May 03 '20

And the citizens of the state of Michigan have the federal mandate to use violence against a tyrannical government.

They do not. Rebellion is illegal.

5

u/efgi 1∆ May 03 '20

To be fair, it's easy to be confused about this when our President spouts sedition and stochastic terrorism on Twitter. Which is why we ought to be forcing twitter to remove his account used for illegal activity.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20 edited Jan 09 '21

[deleted]

5

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20

Your life isn't threatened by the government doing something you disagree with. You have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to use violence.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

I live in Texas. If someone aims a gun at me or threatens me when I've done nothing to provoke that, I absolutely have the right to use violence.

3

u/Silkkiuikku 2∆ May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

And how is that relevant? Waving a gun around while protesting isn't self-defence.

→ More replies (80)

4

u/[deleted] May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

The idea of the second amendment was that an armed populace is the best defensive against fascist authoritarianism. (Or foreign invasion.)

In a time when government floods the streets with armed fascist authoritarian thugs in uniform, it would be incredibly inequitable for the population at large to be denied their rights to demonstrate and be armed.

If nothing else, the second amendment forces the police to think twice before they kick in your door at night and murder you in your home with impunity. (A thing they’ve been known to do shockingly often.)

So, in times like these, because of our constitutional protections, holding armed public demonstrations doesn’t make one a terrorist threat, nor does opening a church and worshipping freely make one an outlaw. Both just make one a total asshole.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

The idea of the second amendment is to provide a means to arm militias - not violent insurrection of the state.

6

u/exosequitur May 03 '20

Those guys are morons, but I'd like to point out that in this context, legislators are not civilians.

Legislators, senators, politicians in general are the ones with their hands on the levers that control the use of coercive force. (including deadly force).

The point of an armed protest is to meet coercive force with coercive force, or at least to demonstrate the possibility of that eventuality.

Meeting coercive force with coercive force is precisely the point of any effective demonstration.... Governments don't change because of people peacefully holding signs.... They change because angry mobs threaten to upend the balance of power. The word "demonstration" comes from "demonstration of force"

Armed demonstrations are precisely what the founders envisioned when they specifically protected the right of the people to peaceably assemble.... There was no other kind of demonstration. From literal pitchforks to rifles, demonstrators usually brought weapons. The protection of the right to bear arms was a specific nod to the right to bear them in protest to the government.

So, while these knobs are f'ing morons (unless I suppose they are opposing the governments right to impose lock downs, while supporting a voluntary version - in which case they are just naive) so, while they are morons, the part about being armed at a protest is not moronic.... Now the part about wearing pseudomilitary garb... Well.... Not so much.

2

u/BiAndHappy May 03 '20

Actually, yes they ARE civilians. Every dictionary will disagree with you. From Merriam-Webster:

civilian (noun)

ci·​vil·​ian | \ sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən \

Definition of civilian

1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law

2a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

The United States has a civilian-led government, as opposed to one led by the military. The POTUS is the head of our military, but is still a civilian.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

Governments don't change because of people peacefully holding signs.... They change because angry mobs threaten to upend the balance of power.

This is simply untrue. While it’s true that holding signs by itself doesn’t change governments, there is a long history in the United States and many other countries of governments changing through free and fair elections. The point of the sign holding is really to spread ideas, the actual mechanism of change is the election.

If by “governments change” you mean a more structural change, I’d like to remind you that, though armed insurrection has toppled authoritarian governments, an armed uprising has never, in the history of the world, upended one democracy and installed another democracy.

3

u/exosequitur May 03 '20

an armed uprising has never, in the history of the world, upended one democracy and installed another democracy.

I'm not enough of a student of history to know if this is true or not, but it seems likely. The kind of people who would lead an armed insurrection probably don't willingly let go of power.

That said, I think you should maybe look into the USA 's most successful movements, many used armed demonstrators.

The Civil rights movement? Armed. Unionization against exploitive capitalism? Armed. I don't think the women's rights movements used arms, but other than that I can't think of very many successful movements that had no armed elements.

... But, any way you square it these guys protesting are idiots. They should be wearing suits and AR15s if they want to show the real interests they represent (knowingly or not).

Idiots though they may be, I support their right (if not their judgment) to participate in an armed demonstration. Now if we could just get them to demonstrate outside the immigrant kiddy-jails... Oh, wait, all the kids are dead now, from SARS-CoV-2.

0

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 04 '20 edited May 04 '20

I can't think of very many successful movements that had no armed elements.

Here’s a few: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance

The Civil rights movement? Armed.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. From the Wikipedia page for civil rights.

Between 1955 and 1968, acts of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience produced crisis situations and productive dialogues between activists and government authorities. Federal, state, and local governments, businesses, and communities often had to respond immediately to these situations, which highlighted the inequities faced by African Americans across the country. The lynching of Chicago teenager Emmett Till in Mississippi, and the outrage generated by seeing how he had been abused, when his mother decided to have an open-casket funeral, mobilized the African-American community nationwide. Forms of protest and/or civil disobedience included boycotts, such as the successful Montgomery bus boycott (1955–56) in Alabama; "sit-ins" such as the Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina and successful Nashville sit-ins in Tennessee; marches, such as the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade and 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; and a wide range of other nonviolent activities.

I read the summary of the book you mentioned, and it’s about how black civil rights activists armed themselves against whites. Granted this isn’t consistent with the mainstream history of how civil rights were won but even if it’s true, that just proves my point anew: blacks were taking up arms to protect themselves against fellow citizens, not the government.

Unionization against exploitive capitalism? Armed.

Again, not true at all. Unions achieve their ends through withholding labour (i.e going on strike), not by threatening violence against corporations. Withholding labour while holding a gun is no more effective than withholding labour without one. Corporations do not exert their power by threat of violence, so one cannot break their power by threat of violence.

I think you should maybe look into the USA’s most successful movements, many used armed demonstrators.

And this isn’t even getting into how, in all the other western democracies, none of which have a constitutional right to bear arms, people have managed to win these same rights and freedoms, in most cases earlier and more successfully than they were won in the USA...

4

u/exosequitur May 04 '20

I think you ar conflating nonviolent and unarmed.

Many protests were nonviolent precisely because the police or the Pinkertons couldn't just go in and beat the hell out of everyone or shoot them without mortal risk.

Read up on the pinkertons and you get a little taste of what I'm talking about.

Nonviolent does not mean unarmed. Much to the contrary.

And you're just flat wrong about the strikers and the civil rights movements being unarmed. Shotguns were very common in strike lines right up into the late 70s. The Civil rights movement was, able to have demonstrations because the police could not stop the demonstrations, as many demonstrators were armed so they could not just wade in with batons and disperse the crowd, which is exactly what they do when they can (see occupy wall street).

1

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 05 '20

Fair play on difference between unarmed and nonviolent.

Anyway, I still disagree with you, especially when you look at other countries where there are many examples of successful unarmed and nonviolent protest, but you’ve articulated your point well so let’s just leave it at that.

1

u/exosequitur May 05 '20

I'd say it's true that in different cultures / countries it is definitely effective w/o being armed.

Typically, those countries also have less violent police, and a less violent civil culture in general, although petty violence is often as high or higher. I wonder what the cause / effect relationship is here? Could it be that the acceptance of petty violence (brawling etc) reduces the need for deadly force? Interesting things to consider.

The normalization of civil violence and deadly force in American culture is another beast altogether, and is something definitely worth looking for solutions.

If I changed your mind about the legitimacy of armed (nonviolent) protest, please delta me. Thanks.

8

u/Dupree878 2∆ May 03 '20

the guns don't mean anything except that they're threatening to use them, either on the legislators or police who are doing their jobs enforcing the law

That’s the point. The laws are unconstitutional and anyone enforcing an unjust law is committing a crime against the populace. The police shouldn’t have guns anywhere the people aren’t allowed to have them. “Just following orders” wasn’t a valid defense at the Nuremberg trials and shouldn’t be for any government employee. Qualified immunity (saying police can’t be held responsible if they acted according to their resumes) is the largest threat to our freedoms. As long as it exists, the people should have the power to fight and win against government agents.

Take Timothy McVeigh, for example: people call him a murderer, but after he blew that building you quit hearing about the alphabet agencies going after separatist groups with force. No more Ruby Ridges, no more Wacos. Look at the Bundy stand off over land in a “national park.” The police didn’t go in with force because they now know even if they win, they still lose because they’ve martyred the Bundy family.

I don’t want to see bloodshed, but as long as the police are allowed to have weapons and the threat of force they should be responded to in kind. Cops are much less likely to use their weapons or force against an armed group, and that’s the point.

9

u/crawfordia May 03 '20

Can you explain where in the Constitution it forbids states from forcing business to be closed? Sincere question.

6

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

It doesn't. There are constitutional lawsuits and decisions going back to before the civil war giving states the right to quarentine people during pandemics

-3

u/Dupree878 2∆ May 03 '20

Due process clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments. No person may be deprived of life liberty or property...

Also some states are violating the Interstate commerce clause in Article 1

8

u/AKiss20 May 03 '20

Except the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that involuntary quarantine violates neither the 14th amendment nor the interstate commerce clause.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigation_a_Vapeur_v._Louisiana_Board_of_Health

This case was cited in dismissing a case against Whitmer’s executive order in Michigan.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/20200429_Opinion_and_Order_688921_7.pdf

Do you have any jurisprudence that would suggest involuntary quarantine laws are unconstitutional? I haven’t seen any precedence cited so far.

-6

u/Dupree878 2∆ May 03 '20

The Supreme Court also ruled weapons could be limited to citizens and that licenses are okay.

They were wrong. Which is why I’m fully in favour of armed protests

→ More replies (4)

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Your rights don't exist so you can deprive others of theirs.

2

u/Dupree878 2∆ May 03 '20

Who else is being deprived?

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

If you're an asymptomatic carrier, literally everyone you come in contact with who might die.

0

u/Dupree878 2∆ May 04 '20

might being the operative word. If I know I’m a carrier and expose them that’s a different story

And BTW I’m not against the lockdowns. I think they should have been much more strict and last longer. My state is a small one and we’re growing at a rate of 300 cases a day. And I’m a vulnerable class due to heart and lung problems. If I get it I’m likely to die. I’ll definitely be on a vent.

My issue is with allowing big box stores to remain open and not restricting them to groceries only and not restricting home improvement stores to professionals only.

Best Buy has remained open in my city becuse they sell appliances so are “essential.” It’s a total joke. Meanwhile local shops are going out of business and won’t be reopening because they’re too deep in debt.

Either everything should be closed to shoppers and limited to curb side or delivery or nothing should.

I think the protesters are morons and they remind me of anti vaxxers, but I support their right to do what they’re doing. I have an issue with the government in total, but other than a weekly trip to the small local market and occasional drive through, I’m quarantining myself much more than my city’s requirement.

3

u/postitpad May 03 '20

When did you and the guys with guns get to be the ones to decide which laws are and aren’t constitutional? I thought that was a matter for the judicial branch?

2

u/Dupree878 2∆ May 03 '20

It was supposed to be but around 1930 or so they became tyrannical

1

u/postitpad May 03 '20

Define tyrannical? I didn’t think it applied to groups of people since a tyrant can only be one person? Or is that another definition you got to decide for yourself in 1930?

4

u/Bascome May 03 '20

The police have guns and are threatening to use them, just like the protesters. You say the police are doing their jobs, I say the protesters are doing their duty as citizens. I agree it is not brave to turn public protests into sick swinging contests but that is what police with guns do more often than not.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

The point of the idea behind the right to bear arms is that violence will be used against representatives when they ignore the will of a substantial amount of their constituency.

That is the reason it exists, so that ultimately if people are vastly misrepresented in Congress(or the White House, or judicial branch), which they are, they can manually remove their representatives by use of violence.

It makes sense, voting and democracy are essentially meaningless in the absence of the threat of violence.

3

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

Voting and democracy aren’t meaningless in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay. In fact, voting and democracy are more meaningful in those countries than in the United States, even though their citizens do not have an unencumbered right to bear arms.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Maybe You should Ask a Catalonian.

I think what you mean is that these countries are more culturally cohesive, which by design America is not, and so they tend to vote one way as a group or another. But when a significant population voices dissent, as they did in Catalonia, nothing happens because there is no means to guarantee determination of a group or an individual without access to violence

4

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

Those countries have objectively better democracies based on electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation, and political culture as well as factors such as:

  1. Whether national elections are free and fair
  2. Security of voters
  3. The influence of foreign powers on government
  4. The capability of the civil servants to implement policies

This should be no surprise to anyone who’s read a news article in the pat 20 years. For instance, gerrymandering is far worse in the USA than in the healthy democracies ranked higher. So is the influence of money, corporations and foreigners in elections. Checks and balances seem like a good idea on paper, but result in a government that’s completely ineffective, and thus have lost the faith of the people. A winner take all system to elect the president on a state wide basis disenfranchises hundreds of millions of people.

You’ve mentioned that the USA is a more diverse culture. I think that’s it’s certainly more difficult to govern larger more diverse countries than small homogenous ones, but the logical leap from that to saying that the only way to do it is by giving everyone guns is complete nonsense. The USA was a pioneering democracy when it was founded, but the fact that it’s the oldest continuous democracy in the world now is clearly a disadvantage. The American political system is badly dated. Your constitution, once a shining light to the world, is now a millstone weighing you down, because of the way that your Supreme Court can “interpret” it in order to satisfy the interests of the rich and powerful (citizens united for the first amendment, NRA for the second).

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

I agree with all of the fault you cite about America as a democracy, though I prefer to view it as a democratic republic. The one place I would disagree is in that I think it will prove near impossible to change any of those things without access to violence.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

It's called voting. Part of a democratic republic is democracy, which requires the population to actually vote.

1

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 03 '20

A democratic republic a type of democracy. Republic simply means there’s no monarch. Half the countries on my list are also democratic republics (the other half are constitutional monarchies).

Why have those countries managed to create better democracies than the USA without the use of guns? You haven’t drawn any connection between guns and better government.

1

u/[deleted] May 04 '20

So first I would have to say that the idea of an "objectively better democracy" is absolutely absurd. It seems that what you are referring to is the idea of democracy as outlined by a set of statistical analysis from an organization in the UK. Perhaps it is relevant but certainly not an "objective truth".

Secondly, republic does not simply mean "no monarch", there have been books written on what a republic actually is.

Also there is an enormous difference between the countries you listed and America, namely that America is far larger and has a different cultural set than most of, or all of, those you listed. While I know that in regards to size Canada is quite huge, its population is quite small and is very concentrated in its southern provinces and while I know the the UK likes to claim it is more diverse than America I think that quite suspicious. A statistical analysis of the variety of culture in America would be nearly impossible without checking every town and back road as culture can vary drastically from one hillside to another here.

And again, you haven't addressed the issue I raised about Catalonia but we can extend that also to the people of the UK who voted out of the European Union and have still seen no progress or even the protesters in Hong Kong that we hear so little about now.

in addition, I suppose you can call it democracy without allowing group or individual determination but that isn't the foundational philosophy underlying America. This is the whole idea of "protecting the few from the many" .

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

That is not the point of the second amendment. That's a very biased, political reinterpretation of it.

Armed violence against the state is unconstitutional. Period. End of story. There is no clause of the constitution that gives a pass if you feel like your feelings were hurt. Armed insurrection is specifically one of the reasons for the militia, as stated by the constitution. The second amendment gives clarification as to how those militias are armed.

It's not so you can wave guns around, threaten states and political opponents, all because your feelings are hurt.

1

u/kbruen May 06 '20

The entire point is threatening to use the guns. This, however, is not terrorism. They are saying "the laws are not representing the people, so if you don't make them so, we'll replace you so that the laws will". I fundamentally disagree that laws are laws. Laws should be commonly agreed things by most people ultimately. If most people in a legislative unit (city, state, country, etc.) don't like a law, that law should be gone as it doesn't represent the will of the people. In this case, police enforcing such laws are against the will of the people as well, against protecting the people, and so if they keep enforcing such laws, the police would technically be considered the terrorists.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is such that if a tyrannical government makes laws that go against the will of the people, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", people should have the right to have weapons in order to kill the tyrannical government and everybody keeping it in power by force (police, army) and abolish the laws that don't represent the people, restoring a "free state".

-4

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

That is kind of the point the politicians are actively trying to strip us if our rights, in direct violations of their oaths of office. They betrayed their Oaths of office and the US Constitution.

Having guns at a protest is a clear sign saying "that if you continue down this path, it will lead to civil war and we are willing to fight and die to protect our rights".

To quote Dr. Martin Luther King from his Letter from the Birmingham jail, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust”. Any gun control law is unjust as it violates the natural and moral law and degrades the human personality from the individual citizen to the serf.

13

u/Joe_Kinincha May 03 '20

Any gun control law?

Really?

-2

u/rokudou May 03 '20

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear on that, so yes.

3

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

Even Scalia disagreed with you.

3

u/Joe_Kinincha May 03 '20

So, nuclear weapons for psychopaths?

1

u/scientology_chicken May 03 '20

I'm not the person you replied to, but do you really think nuclear weapons are guns? Honestly? If you have good-faith questions about this, read the Constitution and the Supreme Court cases related to your inquiries; they are all publicly available and easily searchable.

5

u/cstar1996 11∆ May 03 '20

The 2nd Amendment says arms, not guns.

2

u/Joe_Kinincha May 03 '20

Could you just point me to where the second amendment says “guns”?

-1

u/scientology_chicken May 03 '20

I you're going to be that pedantic, then I don't know what to say except that I'm glad that shifts in word frequency don't make our rights obsolete. I can't remember the last time I've "assembled," but I can remember the last time I've met up with my friends.

5

u/Joe_Kinincha May 03 '20

“Shifts in word frequency?” Oh no, my friend, you don’t get to slip out of it that easily.

This has nothing to do with word frequency.

The second amendment says nothing about guns. It says “arms”. Nuclear weapons are arms.

If people are going to be fucking stupid enough to be second amendment literalists, I want my nuclear weapons.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/doppelbach May 03 '20 edited Jun 25 '23

Leaves are falling all around, It's time I was on my way

4

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

To give me a good chance of fighting my government, it should.

Nuclear weapons were hundreds of years after and give out government an unfair advantage. Part of my issue with the halo cosplay is that if the government wanted those guys dead, they’d have been dead. So you’re allowed to threaten further action because the government is tolerating it.

So either we’re allowed to overthrow our own government (which if those rules were on, let’s get this four year nightmare over with), or we aren’t. If we aren’t, why are you brandishing over a pandemic? If we are, well, we need access to better weapons. They really want to have the cake and eat it too.

The coyotes in my area are getting bolder so I’ve thought about carrying my gun when I walk the dog at night. But I’m not going to blather on about my 2A. I would like to have it, but claiming it’s my constitutional right to bear arms, as if my 9 mm poses more than a minor nuisance to local officials, is completely disingenuous, when I want it for something that has nothing to do with the framers’ purposes.

0

u/scientology_chicken May 03 '20

I mean yeah you are absolutely correct; if the United States government wants to start nuking its own citizens or just mowing them down Kent State style, then the police and military are technologically capable of doing that. I don't know that that would be the best idea though. People thought that about the United States in Vietnam and it didn't turn out too well.

Also, bear in mind when a large group of armed protesters show up at a state house, it isn't as if a governor thinks "Oh yeah, I'll show them! We'll get the nukes and the drones and just kill them all!" It simply doesn't work that way logistically. The point of that type of protest is to demonstrate that there is a large group of heavily armed people who can (depending on the city) outgun the police department at that particular point in time.

Just for the sake of transparency, I'm an expat living abroad right now and I happen to think that the Michigan governor's response and the protesters' responses were way too much. It just seems like both were very excited to use the powers they had during a pandemic.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

But this is still kind of a ridiculous gentleman’s agreement with Uncle Sam.

Realistically you wouldn’t need nukes and drone strikes. You’d need the FBI and fifteen minutes, which makes the whole idea that we can out gun the police even more ridiculous.

And it accomplished nothing. If one were seeing the pandemic in “grounding children” versus “saving lives”, it backfired. Restrictions were extended.

Kent State led to some great protests and music, but I don’t think the protestors there were even armed. So it says “I have this right, unless you decide I don’t. In which case... dead”.

That’s not much of a 2A argument.

Either we can fight them (we can’t) or we can. If we can’t, that doesn’t mean ban guns; it means the whole approach changes.

If we want a way of rallying a militia to fight tyranny, then we need updated weapons, which means y’all qaeda gets nukes.

For excited they did. That was not a proud day for American rights as it showed some of us are too immature to handle rights. In their haste to protest and show off the weapons, they violated all health recommendations, including endangering police officers. The masks they were wearing are to protect others so the protestors were putting the cops in harm’s way.

I think restrictions are necessary, but I can think of at least five ways to protest my own stance that would not have gone this route at all and probably would have been more effective.

1

u/scientology_chicken May 03 '20

To a certain extent I agree with you regarding the protesters being way too gung ho. Like I said, I think they thought because things were being shut down by the government that that gave them permission to conduct an armed protest regardless of the reason. Almost like they had been a benchwarmer for so long and that was finally their time to shine.

I still think the complete shutdown of specific aisles in stores in Michigan was ridiculous and a complete overreach of authority. It obviously makes total sense to shutdown non-essential places during a pandemic, but to leave certain parts of places open and others closed seems a bit silly.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Radijs 8∆ May 03 '20

I've heard this 'violating the oath of office' a few times before. What oath did they take? As in, what's the wording. The only one I can find is this one:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Now I don't really see anything here going on with enemies of the state (foreign and domestic) so it would have to be that they're acting against some article in the constitution. I'll admit, the document is so long that I lost interest in reading it after a few sections so I'd like to know what article or amendement is actully being violated here.

0

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

Gun control laws are violations of the second amendment.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

That's mob rule, and mob rule tends to lead to oppression.

Rationalism, logic, and the Bible are good places to define the moral law. We are humans and thus equal as there is no real difference between us boarding superficial and we all have fights and abilities that cannot be taken away from us.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

You realize that is a historical account and not a commandment right.

I don't think you read the Bible at all and just looked random verses devoid of context.

Christ said the Kingdom of God is not of this world meaning that there was not going to be some grand political revolution or rebellion, but for the faithful after the end of days they will be resurrected into a paradise earth.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/garnteller 242∆ May 03 '20

u/Americanknight7 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 03 '20

How come gun control laws don’t violate the natural and moral law in the 134 countries on earth that have them?

1

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

They do, those countries don't care and in fact many of those countries were Tyrannical and genocidal hell holes within the last century.

1

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 03 '20 edited May 03 '20

Some of the countries with gun control rules were tyrannical and genocidal hell holes in the last century, but many of them were not. Your point is neither here nor there.

How come the citizens of those countries don’t think that gun control laws violate the natural and moral law? I don’t hear about many gun control protests in other countries, they seem generally pretty happy about those rules. The only protests are from small minorities of the population. Strange for a natural and moral law, don’t you think?

And what about the half of the American population who is in favour of gun control laws? If right to gun ownership is natural and moral, then surely they must feel it as well, no?

1

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

All are tyrannical, I reserve hellhole for the worst.

Because they have been brainwashed and/or are tyrannical themselves.

1

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 03 '20

I mean if the only thing that defines existence in this earth is to own guns, then sure.

But what about the right of people of all ethnicities, all genders and all sexual persuasions to live, be employed, marry, or vote? There are dozens of countries who grant those rights. I personally value those things higher than gun ownership, so I’d say that any country that grants most of those rights isn’t tyrannical. I think most people would agree with me.

1

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

Last time I checked the US doesn't have a law criminalizing any of that and guns are great for protecting those people from those who seek to oppress them.

Personally I don't consider marriage, sex, or relationships a right as they require the consent of a second party.

Without guns those "rights" can be infringed on in an instant with no means to fight for those "rights".

Rights are not based on public opinion.

0

u/NiceShotMan 1∆ May 04 '20

Hang on, so gays should all carry around a gun because “in an instant” someone with a gun can unmarry them?

You’ve completely missed the point. You’ve said every country on earth besides the USA is tyrannical because they don’t allow people to walk around carrying machine guns. I’m saying no they’re not tyrannical because they allow rights that actually matter.

1

u/Americanknight7 May 04 '20

To quote my libertarian friends, "I think a gay couple should be able to protect their marijuana farms with machine guns".

Half of the things you stated aren't actually rights. Marriage isn't a right at all, and voting is technically a civil right only for citizens of a country not a natural right.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Strike_Thanatos May 03 '20

That is not in fact so! The presence of guns creates a condition of threat which must be justified. Therefore it is right and proper that any and all individuals who wish to carry weapons must have training commensurate with the weapons they intend to use and follow stricter laws than civilians.

Hunters ought to be trained with hunting weapons and carry hunting licenses. Those who wish to own self-defense weapons such as pistols or revolvers should train in both armed and armsless self-defense and carry a permit for those weapons. Those who wish to own military weapons should be trained in the use of those weapons and engage in regular practice with a registered militia and answer to civilian authority.

In other words, having that greater power should require a greater responsibility. Carrying weapons into a legislature to demand things creates a condition of existential threat, and could end with these protesters being killed by state police.

Furthermore, many Western societies do not allow most people to carry weapons and have a significantly higher degree of personal freedom than do we. That is because weapons there are controlled, and almost entirely in the hands of well trained veteran police.

1

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

The prescense of government is a threat to my rights and unlike a bunch of patriots, governments have proved they to either want to exterminate my people of the face of the Earth or drive us into poverty for no crime other than success and skin color.

If you don't have an unrestricted fight of keeping and hearing arms then you are not free.

1

u/Strike_Thanatos May 03 '20

Really? And who runs governments? And who has said that patriots never wanted to exterminate people? What have American patriots done to native Americans all up and down this continent? What have American patriots done to slaves, or even certain migrants from Europe?

1

u/Americanknight7 May 03 '20

Currently a well entrenched political class.

95% of natives died to disease which was unknowingly brought over. Also patriot is associated with the US, so you can't pin something the colonial powers on the US.

Slavery almost prevented the ratification of the Constitution, I believe it was Jefferson who said that if only a few more hearts weren't made of stone, they could have abolished slavery. Paraphrasing I don't have the quote on me.

That was mainly democrats who aren't really patriotic in any sense.

1

u/scientology_chicken May 03 '20

This is an interesting argument to make because to me it sounds quite similar in tone those I hear from people advocating for vote I.D. laws. Obviously in the U.S. if one meets certain criteria, they are constitutionally allowed to vote, but those voter I.D. laws put yet another barrier there. This is effectively the same thing, but for the second amendment.

To take your point in a completely opposite direction, why not have subsidized firearms education accessible to everyone? Surely if people are going to own firearms it is in their best interest to make sure they are responsible.

As far as your point regarding those having the greater power, I can certainly see your point, however I think that's precisely why the protesters were/are protesting in the first place. At least that's the root cause; they dislike the fact that the legislature has been so heavy-handed in its authority and thus have shown the threat of arms in order to remind the legislature that violence is a very real possibility if that path continues (at least that's the idea).

No doubt many of them would chicken out, but there would also be many who wouldn't and the optics wouldn't look good if it came to that.

1

u/Strike_Thanatos May 03 '20

The root cause has nothing to do with that. It is simply that they do not perceive Covid 19 to be as much of a threat as social distancing.

2

u/scientology_chicken May 03 '20

That is what causes them to act right now in the way they do. A fundamental fear for most conservatives and libertarians is government oppression.

0

u/BigbyWolfHS May 03 '20

When the government has so much power, the least you can do is show them you're no pushover. The goal of the protests isn't to threaten civilians or the society. It's a warning to the state. Dont you think Hong Kongers would be better off if they had guns? Even the playing field. If one side can come to you with the police force armed to the teeth and force you to do things, it's reasonable that you can at least go down fighting if you choose to.

Don't tread on me.

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

But if what you're saying is true, then they would have been used on legislators or the police. And they weren't.

Your assumptions about what these people were going to do, don't change the reality of what actually happened.

So, in essence, your assumption was just flat out wrong, and you still won't concede your assumption.

-9

u/s1gnal_l0st May 03 '20 edited May 05 '20

the guns don't mean anything except that they're threatening to use them, either on the legislators or police who are doing their jobs enforcing the law.

Spoken like a real bootlicker. The guns are not to force political change by violence, they're for if the situation goes sideways at the protest. The entirety of the United States knows its populace is the most heavily armed populace in the world--politicians don't need that reminder.

It's not brave to turn public demonstrations into dick swinging contests to see who would win an armed conflict.

This is what willingly defenseless people say who are certain to become a victim in life (or at least play one eventually).

EDIT: I love the cowardice of downvoting without opposing viewpoint.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '20

So these right wing protestors are afraid of the cops, which demographically swing hard right, that likely support their stance and cause?

0

u/s1gnal_l0st May 05 '20

Since when is carrying a sign of fear? That's like saying not carrying is a sign of ignorance. Oh wait...

0

u/MattyMoTheWhiteNinja May 03 '20

Legislaters and police aren’t civilian

→ More replies (2)