The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on August 19, 2017, 02:48:48 AM
-
In the pro-gun section of DU, btw...
Star Member SecularMotion (7,917 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172204561
Ban the Open Carry of Firearms
When militia members and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, Va., last Saturday with Nazi flags and racist placards, many of them also carried firearms openly, including semiautomatic weapons. They came to intimidate and terrify protesters and the police. If you read reports of the physical attacks they abetted, apparently their plan worked.
They might try to rationalize their conduct as protected by the First and Second Amendments, but let’s not be fooled. Those who came to Charlottesville openly carrying firearms were neither conveying a nonviolent political message, nor engaged in self-defense nor protecting hearth and home.
Plain and simple, public terror is not protected under the Constitution. That has been the case throughout history. And now is the time to look to that history and prohibit open carry, before the next Charlottesville.
Historically, lawmakers have deemed open carry a threat to public safety. Under English common law, a group of armed protesters constituted a riot, and some American colonies prohibited public carry specifically because it caused public terror. During Reconstruction, the military governments overseeing much of the South responded to racially motivated terror (including the murder of dozens of freedmen and Republicans at the 1866 Louisiana Constitutional Convention) by prohibiting public carry either generally or at political gatherings and polling places. Later, in 1886, a Supreme Court decision, Presser v. Illinois, upheld a law forbidding groups of men to “parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized.” For states, such a law was “necessary to the public peace, safety and good order.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/open-carry-charlottesville.html
::)
Star Member bullimiami (8,911 posts)
2. Ban them all.
Star Member ileus (15,146 posts)
11. Technically OC should discourage harassment and intimidation.
:thatsright:
-
Violent Liberal hates it when his targets can defend themselves.
political violence is why liberals want the law abiding disarmed. You can't terrify voters when they outgun you.
-
Violent Liberal hates it when his targets can defend themselves.
political violence is why liberals want the law abiding disarmed. You can't terrify voters when they outgun you.
Hmmmm, how many people in Charlottesville were carrying firearms?
How many shootings were there?
I don't think the gun owners were the violent ones, or the body count would have been higher...
-
Star Member SecularMotion (7,917 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172204561
Ban the Open Carry of Firearms
When militia members and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, Va., last Saturday with Nazi flags and racist placards, many of them also carried firearms openly, including semiautomatic weapons. They came to intimidate and terrify protesters and the police. If you read reports of the physical attacks they abetted, apparently their plan worked.
They might try to rationalize their conduct as protected by the First and Second Amendments, but let’s not be fooled. Those who came to Charlottesville openly carrying firearms were neither conveying a nonviolent political message, nor engaged in self-defense nor protecting hearth and home.
Another Constitutional scholar from the same school that OBummer attended I would bet. ::)
-
Hmmmm, how many people in Charlottesville were carrying firearms?
How many shootings were there?
I don't think the gun owners were the violent ones, or the body count would have been higher...
1.) The number I've read - in a piece by the militia group's leader - is 32.
2.) Since when did facts matter to Progs?
3.) One non-Antifoid counter-protester credited the open-carriers with doing more to try to prevent violence than did the state police.
4.) Since when did facts matter to Progs?
5.) The VA state police have contradicted Gov. McAwful's claim that the state police limited their actions because open-carriers were better armed than were the state police.
6.) Since when did facts matter to Progs?
7.) The VA state police have contradicted Gov. McAwful's claim that the state police found caches of weapons all over Charlottesville.
8.) Since when did facts matter to Progs?
-
3.) One non-Antifoid counter-protester credited the open-carriers with doing more to try to prevent violence than did the state police.
Wow, I had not heard that. Is there a link?
-
Wow, I had not heard that. Is there a link?
Unfortunately, I did not save the url, so I'm duck-Duck-Going it.
This Guardian (UK) piece is surprisingly balanced, but it is from the militia people's side of things. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/15/charlottesville-militia-free-speech-violence) It's well worth reading, since it gives the militia leaders' views on white supremacy (they're agin it).
ETA: This is even better, with many quotes from the militia leaders. (http://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/12620460-74/new-derry-man-who-led-militia-in-charlottesville-clash-condemns-white-supremacists)
ETA: You have to wade through a lot of blah-blah, but this bears on my point #5. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/18/virginia-governors-claim-about-militia-weapons-and/)
ETA: This ProPublica article (https://www.propublica.org/article/police-stood-by-as-mayhem-mounted-in-charlottesville) has this unsourced statement:
The police did little to stop the bloodshed. Several times, a group of assault-rifle-toting militia members from New York State, wearing body armor and desert camo, played a more active role in breaking up fights.
The statement may be from the observations of the writer(s) of the article, two of whom were in Charlottesville. That article appears to have been the source underlying my point #3. While the liberal bias in the ProPublica article is clear, the comment that the militia people were more effective than were the police is not attributed to a counter-protester. Looking over that article, it's clear to me that I conflated that comment, quoted in a blog post (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/did-the-police-stand-down.php), with another a more general comment by a counter-protester also quoted in that blog post. So my point #3 is incorrect in attributing the claim to a "non-Antifoid counter-protester".
If I find more I'll add it to this post.
-
Another Constitutional scholar from the same school that OBummer attended I would bet. ::)
More likely a other "Constitution scholar" from the same school Odumbass TAUGHT at...
-
They need to ban going to a rally / protest with your face covered. And if you have your face covered and are wearing body armor and carrying a club, pepper spray etc you should be charged with a felony. Then prosecuted and taken out and shot. and mongrels can piss on your bones.
-
They need to ban going to a rally / protest with your face covered. And if you have your face covered and are wearing body armor and carrying a club, pepper spray etc you should be charged with a felony. Then prosecuted and taken out and shot. and mongrels can piss on your bones.
Look up 'The methods of Vlad Tepes,' of something along those lines. :-)
He was not someone to be messed with.
-
They need to ban going to a rally / protest with your face covered. And if you have your face covered and are wearing body armor and carrying a club, pepper spray etc you should be charged with a felony. Then prosecuted and taken out and shot. and mongrels can piss on your bones.
I thought a lot of states already had that law in effect, aimed at outing members of the Klan. Too bad laws, like facts, don't matter to Progs.