I wish this was treated as the terrorism that it is, meaning that this sort of thing should be condemned in no uncertain terms by everyone and charged with some degree of terrorism.
I wish this was treated as the terrorism that it is, meaning that this sort of thing should be condemned in no uncertain terms by everyone and charged with some degree of terrorism.
Terrorism seems a bit much. I live in Michigan and these people can kick rocks, but I don't think they're actions measure up to domestic terrorism unless they plan or commit violence in order to...
Terrorism seems a bit much. I live in Michigan and these people can kick rocks, but I don't think they're actions measure up to domestic terrorism unless they plan or commit violence in order to achieve their goals. I really do wish they would have arrested or fined a few for gathering in a group over 10, but honestly it would have just fed into their narrative and not really dissuaded anyone. Most people are at home.
Walking around armed with signs accusing government officials of treason and wanting to execute them counts as terrorism I think. It's clearly intimidation to achieve a political goal. It's not...
Walking around armed with signs accusing government officials of treason and wanting to execute them counts as terrorism I think. It's clearly intimidation to achieve a political goal. It's not McVeigh-level terrorism and they shouldn't be charged with McVeigh-level terrorism, but there must be some related lower-level charge they can be hit with. If any other group besides white conservatives did this, there would have been a shootout.
Edit: I think their narrative gets fed either way. They either get to push people around or they get to push the "we're persecuted!!" line. I'd rather hold them accountable.
As much as think the US's gun obsession and 2nd amendment in general is pants on head retarded, it's not reconcilable to say you are allowed to bear arms in public and then simultaneously ascribe...
As much as think the US's gun obsession and 2nd amendment in general is pants on head retarded, it's not reconcilable to say you are allowed to bear arms in public and then simultaneously ascribe some sort of intent to doing so while doing something else you would be allowed to do independently.
That is to say, if you can protest and it's ok, and you can be armed and it's ok, then it should be ok to both protest and to be armed. While there's limitations to that (location being foremost among them, like walking into court armed) I don't believe this is a valid one to make.
I think context is key when it comes to this scenario. Sure, exercising your 1st and 2nd amendment rights as they stand now is ok. That said, you can't do certain things with a gun, even short of...
I think context is key when it comes to this scenario. Sure, exercising your 1st and 2nd amendment rights as they stand now is ok. That said, you can't do certain things with a gun, even short of discharging it.
For example, in a road rage incident, if you show or "brandish" a firearm, and it is proven that there was no reasonable threat against your life, then you can be charged with a crime. I would argue, that in this case, the combination of openly brandishing firearms, acting hostile towards political officials and law enforcement, and holding signs asking for people you don't agree with to be executed is no different than the above road rage scenario. There is no reasonable threat against their lives, and they've decided to take up arms despite this.
This part is speculation on my part, but the real question is what is their actual intention when they bring their firearms to the state capitol? Is it a demonstration of their second amendment rights, which in no way are related to the state's pandemic response? Is it an act of intimidation on par with the same intimidation used by terrorists to push their ideological agenda? Or is it because they actually feel that their lives are being threatened?
Now they may actually believe that their lives and rights are being threatened, but it's just not the case. All of Governor Whitmer's orders have been well within her power, and congressional involvement has been included as much as possible. In no way are people dying from having to stay home, medical facilities are open, there aren't food shortages, people strapped for cash have access to expanded food aid, unemployment and stimulus programs. While Michigan has been hit especially hard by COVID-19, the response has actually been superb in my view. It's ironic that their lives are being threatened more by their own actions, than that of the state.
Have you listened to what they have to say? It's all over the place. They have absolutely no clue what they are actually doing and just want to be against something or someone and be part of...
This part is speculation on my part, but the real question is what is their actual intention when they bring their firearms to the state capitol? Is it a demonstration of their second amendment rights, which in no way are related to the state's pandemic response? Is it an act of intimidation on par with the same intimidation used by terrorists to push their ideological agenda? Or is it because they actually feel that their lives are being threatened?
Have you listened to what they have to say? It's all over the place. They have absolutely no clue what they are actually doing and just want to be against something or someone and be part of something exiting. Trying to fit them in some ideological dispute because that's what "normal" protest are usually about is a waste of time. Even these comments we're making about this are a complete waste of time and playing right in to the agenda of the people behinds this.
They're afraid, and I'd wager that this is the first time many of them have been helpless. This doesn't condone their actions, but I feel it helps me to see the human side of them.
They're afraid, and I'd wager that this is the first time many of them have been helpless. This doesn't condone their actions, but I feel it helps me to see the human side of them.
I really try to remember this when observing idiots being idiots. Within their frame of context, what they're doing is both rational, and reasonable. Even if they don't understand or acknowledge...
I really try to remember this when observing idiots being idiots. Within their frame of context, what they're doing is both rational, and reasonable. Even if they don't understand or acknowledge all the reasons that they're doing it. I doubt many of them would admit that they're protesting because they feel helpless and lost, but that's probably one of the reasons.
That doesn't mean I agree with or condone it, but if you can't understand how someone got somewhere, there's no way you can even attempt to course correct them.
Michigander here. Just wanna chime in and say that I know some people who might go to that sort of rally, and it's not because they feel any more helpless than they did before. It's part...
Michigander here.
Just wanna chime in and say that I know some people who might go to that sort of rally, and it's not because they feel any more helpless than they did before.
It's part tribalism, politics as team sports, but it's also an "I'm not gonna let the government tell me what to do" attitude which a lot of people in the state have. The gun carrying guys fit into both, but they just really wanna flex, they literally dream of it, and realized that now they can.
There's a huge difference between showing a weapon (having it be visible, or known that you have it) and brandishing a weapon (readying it out of its holster for handguns, or in the case of long...
There's a huge difference between showing a weapon (having it be visible, or known that you have it) and brandishing a weapon (readying it out of its holster for handguns, or in the case of long arms like rifles and shotguns bringing it to the shoulder or otherwise readying it for use/pointing the muzzle at people). Brandishing where you aren't in danger is a crime regardless of other circumstances - but it is not illegal to have a weapon on you while you engage in road rage within the legal limit of what is allowed (which is pretty slim before you get into assault/menacing territory,, but exists). I haven't seen anything to say these protesters were brandishing weapons, just that they were carrying them.
Again, there is no requirement within the 2nd amendment to say when you can choose to be armed - they could (and knowing the demographic likely do) carry whenever they leave the house. There is no logically sound position where the 2nd amendment is ok, and the right to protest is ok, but that what these people were doing is not ok (for the record my position is that what these people did was not ok because the 2nd amendment is not ok).
But why take a gun to a protest? The point of a protest is to let people in authority know you don't like what they're doing. People carry signs and use megaphones and wear T-shirts to convey...
But why take a gun to a protest? The point of a protest is to let people in authority know you don't like what they're doing. People carry signs and use megaphones and wear T-shirts to convey their message.
In the context of a protest, why is there a need for guns? When you're preparing your equipment for the protest, why bring your gun? We're not talking about small handguns hidden in people's pockets or purses, that might be carried out of a concern for their own safety, we're talking about assault rifles strapped to their chest, which are obviously there to be seen.
Even if they're not brandishing the guns, or making any explicit threats, there's an implied message in these people carrying a gun to a protest. That message is: if you don't listen to us talking, we'll start shooting.
I don't know if that's terrorism or not, but it's certainly a threat.
I think the problem with these people is that if you believe government is inefficient and doesn't listen to ' the people's ' demands then you won't think you can convince it to do anything...
But why take a gun to a protest? The point of a protest is to let people in authority know you don't like what they're doing. People carry signs and use megaphones and wear T-shirts to convey their message.
Even if they're not brandishing the guns, or making any explicit threats, there's an implied message in these people carrying a gun to a protest. That message is: if you don't listen to us talking, we'll start shooting.
I think the problem with these people is that if you believe government is inefficient and doesn't listen to ' the people's ' demands then you won't think you can convince it to do anything without brute force. They don't think there's another way.
I don't agree, but I also don't have a good argument against what you're saying. These type of people have a long history of being treated with kid gloves like no other group in the country.
That is to say, if you can protest and it's ok, and you can be armed and it's ok, then it should be ok to both protest and to be armed. While there's limitations to that (location being foremost among them, like walking into court armed) I don't believe this is a valid one to make.
I don't agree, but I also don't have a good argument against what you're saying. These type of people have a long history of being treated with kid gloves like no other group in the country.
This is akin to saying The context and environment (especially a highly stressful one) obviously changes the likelihood that something dangerous will happen.
That is to say, if you can protest and it's ok, and you can be armed and it's ok, then it should be ok to both protest and to be armed.
This is akin to saying
If you can drive and it's ok, and you can be drunk and it's ok, then it should be ok to both drive and to be drunk
The context and environment (especially a highly stressful one) obviously changes the likelihood that something dangerous will happen.
Kick rocks? Armed individuals standing above senators and yelling at them - causing some to put on bullet proof vests out of fear - is a little more than "kicking rocks". That's before we get to...
Kick rocks? Armed individuals standing above senators and yelling at them - causing some to put on bullet proof vests out of fear - is a little more than "kicking rocks".
That's before we get to the part where they were yelling to hang them.
I don't know where the expression came from, but "go kick rocks" is a politer way of telling someone to leave but in a dismissive and insulting way. Similar to "get out", "fuck off" or "gtfo"....
I don't know where the expression came from, but "go kick rocks" is a politer way of telling someone to leave but in a dismissive and insulting way. Similar to "get out", "fuck off" or "gtfo".
Warning: incoming hot take. If you feel like this is terrorism, that is distinctly anti-American. The right to do this is baked into the American Constitution via the second amendment, which...
Warning: incoming hot take.
If you feel like this is terrorism, that is distinctly anti-American. The right to do this is baked into the American Constitution via the second amendment, which explicitly allows this behaviour. This right is one of the things that is a primary identifier of being American; you can buy a gun and make a difference in the world with that gun. So unless and until that amendment is changed and America's obsession with fetishizing firearms stops, these men are not terrorists, they are patriots (as long as they're white).
And that is one of the most fucked up things about the United States of America.
I'm not concerned with being anti-American or not. I don't think the second amendment allows people with guns storming into a government building holding signs saying "traitors get the rope". One...
I'm not concerned with being anti-American or not. I don't think the second amendment allows people with guns storming into a government building holding signs saying "traitors get the rope". One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, and the United States also holds democracy to be sacred. Threatening government officials isn't democracy.
If you dropped the word "should" from there, then we are in agreement. If you didn't, then I would say that you're wrong. These men are doing things that are mostly legal, and there's a whole...
I don't think the second amendment allows people with guns storming into a government building holding signs saying "traitors get the rope"
If you dropped the word "should" from there, then we are in agreement.
If you didn't, then I would say that you're wrong. These men are doing things that are mostly legal, and there's a whole bunch of people who would argue that the purpose of the second amendment is explicitly so that people can threaten the government if push comes to shove. One of them is even in this thread, and you seem to agree with him.
My opinion on the second amendment means nothing, but yes, I dropped the should. I don't think a group of people with guns openly rebelling against the government would make a difference unless...
My opinion on the second amendment means nothing, but yes, I dropped the should. I don't think a group of people with guns openly rebelling against the government would make a difference unless there were enough of them that they'd be able to push whatever changes they want democratically anyway.
Edit: I think the idea that "the government allows people to have guns to rebel against them!" is also pointless because even if it's enshrined in the Constitution, the government could find plenty of other ways to go after those people.
But that's assuming the democratic process is working. What if it's not? I would say that's a better argument for limiting the powers of the government. That says nothing about why we should limit...
they'd be able to push whatever changes they want democratically anyway.
But that's assuming the democratic process is working. What if it's not?
the government could find plenty of other ways to go after those people.
I would say that's a better argument for limiting the powers of the government. That says nothing about why we should limit the powers of "the people".
People marching around with guns calling for others' execution is itself tyranny. If they walked around my block armed and saying "moonbathers is a traitor" I'd certainly be nervous to speak out...
People marching around with guns calling for others' execution is itself tyranny. If they walked around my block armed and saying "moonbathers is a traitor" I'd certainly be nervous to speak out and less likely to go vote.
Yes, but we're assuming that we do have enough people to enact change democratically in a functioning democracy, with the stipulation that democracy isn't functioning, so yes, that many people...
Yes, but we're assuming that we do have enough people to enact change democratically in a functioning democracy, with the stipulation that democracy isn't functioning, so yes, that many people could make a difference.
This is exactly the case. Hence the futility and stupidity of the second amendment.
I don't think a group of people with guns openly rebelling against the government would make a difference unless there were enough of them that they'd be able to push whatever changes they want democratically anyway.
This is exactly the case. Hence the futility and stupidity of the second amendment.
I certainly don't speak for @aphoenix, but for myself I absolutely would (and do) think this is fucked up, whether I believed the government's actions to be tyrannical or not. Self-righteous armed...
I certainly don't speak for @aphoenix, but for myself I absolutely would (and do) think this is fucked up, whether I believed the government's actions to be tyrannical or not. Self-righteous armed thugs, whether left-or-right wing, are not the saviors of life, liberty, and democracy.
If our political discourse is reduced to a question of who can carry the most assault rifles into public buildings, then we're all fucked. Our nation will be torn by spasms of violence and death, and the tyranny will only get worse. Expecting gangs of gun-toting reactionaries to solve a tyranny problem is like introducing mongooses to Hawaii to solve the rat problem. The reactionaries will leave the tyranny alone, and eat our ground-nesting democracy into extinction.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but: I mean, yeah? Hardly any actions are ever tyrannical in every situation or completely ok in every situation. Walking into a government building armed,...
I'm not the person you're replying to, but: I mean, yeah? Hardly any actions are ever tyrannical in every situation or completely ok in every situation. Walking into a government building armed, holding signs calling for the officials in that building to be executed is fucked up.
Quit being patronizing. You ask me to take these people seriously and immediately turn around and not only don't take me seriously but don't think I believe in what I'm saying. I've been to plenty...
I get it, we're so used to comfortable middle class people roleplaying protests with funny, quippy signs that don't mean anything other than trying to be funny. Actual bona fide angry people that believe in their cause is frightening.
Quit being patronizing. You ask me to take these people seriously and immediately turn around and not only don't take me seriously but don't think I believe in what I'm saying.
I've been to plenty of protests, and just because people weren't LARPing as some militia doesn't mean they didn't believe in their cause. They took some time out of their day to stand around at a building showing support for whatever they believed in.
And yes, I would be frightened if these people were protesting me. These are the type of people who shoot up synagogues and if they did this with signs saying I should be executed I'd be pretty worried. These people aren't the minutemen of yore, they're potential McVeighs. Not only are their actions tyrannical in themselves, they're not going to accomplish any more than the comfortable middle-class people do. Michigan's government isn't going to back down because of these people and if any government officials are assassinated over this the book would rightly be thrown at whoever did it.
But if these government actions aren't worthy of protest then none are.
I completely disagree. Calling the current lockdown measures an overreach is being rigid to the point of hurting yourself in the end. A just society adopts to its circumstances and right now the circumstances are that there's a terrible pandemic going on, our country isn't at all prepared for it, and our healthcare system is garbage. These people are protesting for their right to go out and work and get sick and die when they should be protesting for more aid from the government. If we did nothing that could even be stretched to be an overreach of the Constitution, so many more people would be sick or dead right now than currently are.
Best case scenario, you have a bunch of people being contained against their will in closed quarters, during a pandemic when we already got a lot of people in prisons and are floating ideas to let...
Best case scenario, you have a bunch of people being contained against their will in closed quarters, during a pandemic when we already got a lot of people in prisons and are floating ideas to let them out for their own safety. Worse case, you have that and a riot.
We should want better from ourselves and the people we share a country with. If another group did the same thing, showing up armed and challenging them, it would end in a shootout eventually. This...
We should want better from ourselves and the people we share a country with. If another group did the same thing, showing up armed and challenging them, it would end in a shootout eventually. This exact event would have ended up in a shootout between police and protestors if it was anyone but white conservatives.
And as I replied elsewhere, yeah? That doesn't change what I'm saying. If I thought the government was tyrannical for allowing radio waves to permeate my home, should I be given the same amount of...
As I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, that is your opinion based on your support for the government's actions (skin colour aside, because that part is incontrovertibly true). If the government was taking actions you considered tyrannical, you wouldn't be thinking the same way.
And as I replied elsewhere, yeah? That doesn't change what I'm saying. If I thought the government was tyrannical for allowing radio waves to permeate my home, should I be given the same amount of consideration as these assclowns are? If I walked into a state capitol with my best military surplus gear calling for govenrment officials to be executed I'd be arrested and/or shot on the spot.
I'm not concerned with what a small group of people 250 years ago thought, I'm concerned with what's right. The actions being taken are unprecedented because a pandemic like this hasn't been seen in a hundred years and travel is considerably easier now than it was then. If a pandemic of this scale had happened in the 1760s or 1770s I'm sure the founding fathers would have put something about it in the Constitution. They wrote an entire amendment about quartering troops and that hasn't been an issue since it came up even though it was an issue leading up to the American Revolution.
I understand that these people see it as overreach, I just think they're fucking dumb and endangering both themselves and innocent people who wanted nothing to do with their astroturfed protest.
You say nothing is "right" but also that these people demanding their freedoms back is right. Your arguments always go back to "well these other people think something else and who's to say...
You say nothing is "right" but also that these people demanding their freedoms back is right. Your arguments always go back to "well these other people think something else and who's to say they're wrong?". I don't care what other societies prioritize as far as it pertains to this discussion. These people protesting are making life more difficult for everyone, regardless of what your priority is. If they want the economy to open back up they shouldn't be putting themselves and others at risk and prolonging this whole thing. If they want their rights back, running around with guns isn't going to convince anyone. Michigan's government isn't going to back down until they determine it's safe. What could these people possibly do to change the govenrment's mind? Are they going to assassinate people? I don't think that would solve their problem either.
I wish you would argue with me in good faith instead of attacking my character or dismissing my arguments by making assumptions about me. I'd like to think that I've shown that I argue with people on this site in good faith and it should be returned.
I think what we should ideally do is make it clear that the cause of social distancing is bad handling of COVID by usually Republican leaders and the cutting of public welfare to the brink that...
I think what we should ideally do is make it clear that the cause of social distancing is bad handling of COVID by usually Republican leaders and the cutting of public welfare to the brink that led to a pandemic which can now only be held back by locking people in their homes and, had these things not happened COVID would have been impeded very early. Problem is they've heard that one before and are ready to dismiss it.
More realistically they should be taught to dissent from their homes by doing something like banging their frying pans or maybe something like this if they don't see it like they do 'political correctness'.
Can someone give me a rough estimate of how many protesters (people) there have been around the US? I get the feeling that this is blown way out of proportion in media coverage but would love to...
Can someone give me a rough estimate of how many protesters (people) there have been around the US? I get the feeling that this is blown way out of proportion in media coverage but would love to see some numbers to back it up.
Don't know about nationwide, but this protest drew about 400-700 people. Michigan is one of the hardest hit states, but the impact is incredibly skewed toward A) Detroit which is on the east side...
Don't know about nationwide, but this protest drew about 400-700 people. Michigan is one of the hardest hit states, but the impact is incredibly skewed toward
A) Detroit which is on the east side of the state
B) lower income workers who are likely still having to work because they're "essential" and don't have the economic support to quit if they want to
C) communities of color, for a long list of historical reasons
These people represent a tiny fraction of people in Michigan, which has about 10 million. The rest of us are sitting at home, yelling at them.
I wish this was treated as the terrorism that it is, meaning that this sort of thing should be condemned in no uncertain terms by everyone and charged with some degree of terrorism.
Terrorism seems a bit much. I live in Michigan and these people can kick rocks, but I don't think they're actions measure up to domestic terrorism unless they plan or commit violence in order to achieve their goals. I really do wish they would have arrested or fined a few for gathering in a group over 10, but honestly it would have just fed into their narrative and not really dissuaded anyone. Most people are at home.
Walking around armed with signs accusing government officials of treason and wanting to execute them counts as terrorism I think. It's clearly intimidation to achieve a political goal. It's not McVeigh-level terrorism and they shouldn't be charged with McVeigh-level terrorism, but there must be some related lower-level charge they can be hit with. If any other group besides white conservatives did this, there would have been a shootout.
Edit: I think their narrative gets fed either way. They either get to push people around or they get to push the "we're persecuted!!" line. I'd rather hold them accountable.
As much as think the US's gun obsession and 2nd amendment in general is pants on head retarded, it's not reconcilable to say you are allowed to bear arms in public and then simultaneously ascribe some sort of intent to doing so while doing something else you would be allowed to do independently.
That is to say, if you can protest and it's ok, and you can be armed and it's ok, then it should be ok to both protest and to be armed. While there's limitations to that (location being foremost among them, like walking into court armed) I don't believe this is a valid one to make.
I think context is key when it comes to this scenario. Sure, exercising your 1st and 2nd amendment rights as they stand now is ok. That said, you can't do certain things with a gun, even short of discharging it.
For example, in a road rage incident, if you show or "brandish" a firearm, and it is proven that there was no reasonable threat against your life, then you can be charged with a crime. I would argue, that in this case, the combination of openly brandishing firearms, acting hostile towards political officials and law enforcement, and holding signs asking for people you don't agree with to be executed is no different than the above road rage scenario. There is no reasonable threat against their lives, and they've decided to take up arms despite this.
This part is speculation on my part, but the real question is what is their actual intention when they bring their firearms to the state capitol? Is it a demonstration of their second amendment rights, which in no way are related to the state's pandemic response? Is it an act of intimidation on par with the same intimidation used by terrorists to push their ideological agenda? Or is it because they actually feel that their lives are being threatened?
Now they may actually believe that their lives and rights are being threatened, but it's just not the case. All of Governor Whitmer's orders have been well within her power, and congressional involvement has been included as much as possible. In no way are people dying from having to stay home, medical facilities are open, there aren't food shortages, people strapped for cash have access to expanded food aid, unemployment and stimulus programs. While Michigan has been hit especially hard by COVID-19, the response has actually been superb in my view. It's ironic that their lives are being threatened more by their own actions, than that of the state.
Have you listened to what they have to say? It's all over the place. They have absolutely no clue what they are actually doing and just want to be against something or someone and be part of something exiting. Trying to fit them in some ideological dispute because that's what "normal" protest are usually about is a waste of time. Even these comments we're making about this are a complete waste of time and playing right in to the agenda of the people behinds this.
They're afraid, and I'd wager that this is the first time many of them have been helpless. This doesn't condone their actions, but I feel it helps me to see the human side of them.
I really try to remember this when observing idiots being idiots. Within their frame of context, what they're doing is both rational, and reasonable. Even if they don't understand or acknowledge all the reasons that they're doing it. I doubt many of them would admit that they're protesting because they feel helpless and lost, but that's probably one of the reasons.
That doesn't mean I agree with or condone it, but if you can't understand how someone got somewhere, there's no way you can even attempt to course correct them.
Agreed entirely. Well said.
Michigander here.
Just wanna chime in and say that I know some people who might go to that sort of rally, and it's not because they feel any more helpless than they did before.
It's part tribalism, politics as team sports, but it's also an "I'm not gonna let the government tell me what to do" attitude which a lot of people in the state have. The gun carrying guys fit into both, but they just really wanna flex, they literally dream of it, and realized that now they can.
There's a huge difference between showing a weapon (having it be visible, or known that you have it) and brandishing a weapon (readying it out of its holster for handguns, or in the case of long arms like rifles and shotguns bringing it to the shoulder or otherwise readying it for use/pointing the muzzle at people). Brandishing where you aren't in danger is a crime regardless of other circumstances - but it is not illegal to have a weapon on you while you engage in road rage within the legal limit of what is allowed (which is pretty slim before you get into assault/menacing territory,, but exists). I haven't seen anything to say these protesters were brandishing weapons, just that they were carrying them.
Again, there is no requirement within the 2nd amendment to say when you can choose to be armed - they could (and knowing the demographic likely do) carry whenever they leave the house. There is no logically sound position where the 2nd amendment is ok, and the right to protest is ok, but that what these people were doing is not ok (for the record my position is that what these people did was not ok because the 2nd amendment is not ok).
But why take a gun to a protest? The point of a protest is to let people in authority know you don't like what they're doing. People carry signs and use megaphones and wear T-shirts to convey their message.
In the context of a protest, why is there a need for guns? When you're preparing your equipment for the protest, why bring your gun? We're not talking about small handguns hidden in people's pockets or purses, that might be carried out of a concern for their own safety, we're talking about assault rifles strapped to their chest, which are obviously there to be seen.
Even if they're not brandishing the guns, or making any explicit threats, there's an implied message in these people carrying a gun to a protest. That message is: if you don't listen to us talking, we'll start shooting.
I don't know if that's terrorism or not, but it's certainly a threat.
I think the problem with these people is that if you believe government is inefficient and doesn't listen to ' the people's ' demands then you won't think you can convince it to do anything without brute force. They don't think there's another way.
I don't agree, but I also don't have a good argument against what you're saying. These type of people have a long history of being treated with kid gloves like no other group in the country.
This is akin to saying
The context and environment (especially a highly stressful one) obviously changes the likelihood that something dangerous will happen.
Kick rocks? Armed individuals standing above senators and yelling at them - causing some to put on bullet proof vests out of fear - is a little more than "kicking rocks".
That's before we get to the part where they were yelling to hang them.
I'm just checking, because the way I'm reading your response it seems you might not, that you know "kick rocks" means they can leave.
I don't know where the expression came from, but "go kick rocks" is a politer way of telling someone to leave but in a dismissive and insulting way. Similar to "get out", "fuck off" or "gtfo".
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-slang-definition-of-go-kick-rocks
Makes way more sense, thanks.
Warning: incoming hot take.
If you feel like this is terrorism, that is distinctly anti-American. The right to do this is baked into the American Constitution via the second amendment, which explicitly allows this behaviour. This right is one of the things that is a primary identifier of being American; you can buy a gun and make a difference in the world with that gun. So unless and until that amendment is changed and America's obsession with fetishizing firearms stops, these men are not terrorists, they are patriots (as long as they're white).
And that is one of the most fucked up things about the United States of America.
I'm not concerned with being anti-American or not. I don't think the second amendment allows people with guns storming into a government building holding signs saying "traitors get the rope". One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, and the United States also holds democracy to be sacred. Threatening government officials isn't democracy.
If you dropped the word "should" from there, then we are in agreement.
If you didn't, then I would say that you're wrong. These men are doing things that are mostly legal, and there's a whole bunch of people who would argue that the purpose of the second amendment is explicitly so that people can threaten the government if push comes to shove. One of them is even in this thread, and you seem to agree with him.
My opinion on the second amendment means nothing, but yes, I dropped the should. I don't think a group of people with guns openly rebelling against the government would make a difference unless there were enough of them that they'd be able to push whatever changes they want democratically anyway.
Edit: I think the idea that "the government allows people to have guns to rebel against them!" is also pointless because even if it's enshrined in the Constitution, the government could find plenty of other ways to go after those people.
But that's assuming the democratic process is working. What if it's not?
I would say that's a better argument for limiting the powers of the government. That says nothing about why we should limit the powers of "the people".
People marching around with guns calling for others' execution is itself tyranny. If they walked around my block armed and saying "moonbathers is a traitor" I'd certainly be nervous to speak out and less likely to go vote.
Unprovoked threats of violence are wrong, yes. That has nothing to do with the second amendment though.
Unprovoked threats of violence mean a whole lot more if you're walking around armed than if you aren't.
Then 400 people with guns will make not a single iota of difference.
Yes, but we're assuming that we do have enough people to enact change democratically in a functioning democracy, with the stipulation that democracy isn't functioning, so yes, that many people could make a difference.
This is exactly the case. Hence the futility and stupidity of the second amendment.
I certainly don't speak for @aphoenix, but for myself I absolutely would (and do) think this is fucked up, whether I believed the government's actions to be tyrannical or not. Self-righteous armed thugs, whether left-or-right wing, are not the saviors of life, liberty, and democracy.
If our political discourse is reduced to a question of who can carry the most assault rifles into public buildings, then we're all fucked. Our nation will be torn by spasms of violence and death, and the tyranny will only get worse. Expecting gangs of gun-toting reactionaries to solve a tyranny problem is like introducing mongooses to Hawaii to solve the rat problem. The reactionaries will leave the tyranny alone, and eat our ground-nesting democracy into extinction.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but: I mean, yeah? Hardly any actions are ever tyrannical in every situation or completely ok in every situation. Walking into a government building armed, holding signs calling for the officials in that building to be executed is fucked up.
Quit being patronizing. You ask me to take these people seriously and immediately turn around and not only don't take me seriously but don't think I believe in what I'm saying.
I've been to plenty of protests, and just because people weren't LARPing as some militia doesn't mean they didn't believe in their cause. They took some time out of their day to stand around at a building showing support for whatever they believed in.
And yes, I would be frightened if these people were protesting me. These are the type of people who shoot up synagogues and if they did this with signs saying I should be executed I'd be pretty worried. These people aren't the minutemen of yore, they're potential McVeighs. Not only are their actions tyrannical in themselves, they're not going to accomplish any more than the comfortable middle-class people do. Michigan's government isn't going to back down because of these people and if any government officials are assassinated over this the book would rightly be thrown at whoever did it.
I completely disagree. Calling the current lockdown measures an overreach is being rigid to the point of hurting yourself in the end. A just society adopts to its circumstances and right now the circumstances are that there's a terrible pandemic going on, our country isn't at all prepared for it, and our healthcare system is garbage. These people are protesting for their right to go out and work and get sick and die when they should be protesting for more aid from the government. If we did nothing that could even be stretched to be an overreach of the Constitution, so many more people would be sick or dead right now than currently are.
Best case scenario, you have a bunch of people being contained against their will in closed quarters, during a pandemic when we already got a lot of people in prisons and are floating ideas to let them out for their own safety. Worse case, you have that and a riot.
Are we supposed to just let these fucks run around armed, intimidating whoever they want then?
We should want better from ourselves and the people we share a country with. If another group did the same thing, showing up armed and challenging them, it would end in a shootout eventually. This exact event would have ended up in a shootout between police and protestors if it was anyone but white conservatives.
And as I replied elsewhere, yeah? That doesn't change what I'm saying. If I thought the government was tyrannical for allowing radio waves to permeate my home, should I be given the same amount of consideration as these assclowns are? If I walked into a state capitol with my best military surplus gear calling for govenrment officials to be executed I'd be arrested and/or shot on the spot.
I'm not concerned with what a small group of people 250 years ago thought, I'm concerned with what's right. The actions being taken are unprecedented because a pandemic like this hasn't been seen in a hundred years and travel is considerably easier now than it was then. If a pandemic of this scale had happened in the 1760s or 1770s I'm sure the founding fathers would have put something about it in the Constitution. They wrote an entire amendment about quartering troops and that hasn't been an issue since it came up even though it was an issue leading up to the American Revolution.
I understand that these people see it as overreach, I just think they're fucking dumb and endangering both themselves and innocent people who wanted nothing to do with their astroturfed protest.
You say nothing is "right" but also that these people demanding their freedoms back is right. Your arguments always go back to "well these other people think something else and who's to say they're wrong?". I don't care what other societies prioritize as far as it pertains to this discussion. These people protesting are making life more difficult for everyone, regardless of what your priority is. If they want the economy to open back up they shouldn't be putting themselves and others at risk and prolonging this whole thing. If they want their rights back, running around with guns isn't going to convince anyone. Michigan's government isn't going to back down until they determine it's safe. What could these people possibly do to change the govenrment's mind? Are they going to assassinate people? I don't think that would solve their problem either.
I wish you would argue with me in good faith instead of attacking my character or dismissing my arguments by making assumptions about me. I'd like to think that I've shown that I argue with people on this site in good faith and it should be returned.
I think what we should ideally do is make it clear that the cause of social distancing is bad handling of COVID by usually Republican leaders and the cutting of public welfare to the brink that led to a pandemic which can now only be held back by locking people in their homes and, had these things not happened COVID would have been impeded very early. Problem is they've heard that one before and are ready to dismiss it.
More realistically they should be taught to dissent from their homes by doing something like banging their frying pans or maybe something like this if they don't see it like they do 'political correctness'.
I can't even parse this.
Can someone give me a rough estimate of how many protesters (people) there have been around the US? I get the feeling that this is blown way out of proportion in media coverage but would love to see some numbers to back it up.
Don't know about nationwide, but this protest drew about 400-700 people. Michigan is one of the hardest hit states, but the impact is incredibly skewed toward
A) Detroit which is on the east side of the state
B) lower income workers who are likely still having to work because they're "essential" and don't have the economic support to quit if they want to
C) communities of color, for a long list of historical reasons
These people represent a tiny fraction of people in Michigan, which has about 10 million. The rest of us are sitting at home, yelling at them.