I agree. Armed protesters are a deterrent. It keeps the other side in check.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Do the armed protestors in Michigan help, or hurt the cause?
- Thread starter Dunraven
- Start date
Btw this posting, and another in the horsecrap post....
What I am seeing is..... based on one comment, "I daresay you arent talking to the right people", based on who the speaker of that line talks to versus who I talk to...
The MI protesters exercised two of their constitutional rights, their way, their choice, their manner, their culture.
(1) Wealthy educated whites articulate and act their style. And often seem to believe their way is the only way, anybody else is wrong.
(Not 1) Middle class whites, see above.... most Hiders seem to fall here.
(Not 1) Struggling youth in middle class white, act and articulate their way, and repeatedly ask for equal footing with the two above, along with respect for their strata level.
Poor whites, struggling, generally act in a manner not approved by (1), but accepted on different levels by those following (1), as each gets to know the other personally.
Those who have struggled harder, may protest harder, may fight harder, with less social aplomb, than approved by (1)....
Fuddz, god help us...
Black people, would prefer not getting murdered killed shot while black, etc, and will respond culturally because of the past.
Hispanics will respond culturally based on the treatment received by any of the above.
Are any of them 'wrong' in the manner they choose to protest ?
Who are we to judge right or wrong by them and how they do it ?
If (1)'s way worked for all of us, we would naturally do it because it works for all of us.
Wayne LaPierre shot that in the foot... I think he blew the whole foot off...
Poor whites, blacks, and Hispanics can definitely say (1) and Wayne havent done a whole lot of protesting for them, or much good for them either.
Struggling youth cant identify with (1) or Wayne and other pressures have worked to separate them from less fortunate people.
And I could go on.
Point is, many of those mentioned above, and the MI protesters DO NOT BELIEVE their best interests are being represented and they protest in the way they think best for them. That IS their constitutional right.
Will we deny them their rights because we think it hurts ours ??? Makes us look bad ? Are we going to be that judgmental ?
Are we going us against them, because Hannity says they look like ass clowns, or some people dont like their gear, their looks, their bearing ?
They are fellow American citizens covered by the same rights as each individual posting here.
And we should be talking to them all, daresay, talking to the right people. All of them are the right people, allies, ready to stand against overbearing .Gov.
They are us under different circumstances.
If fence sitters will turn against us for us siding with less desirables, those fence sitters are no different from the German people who watched the Nazis put Jews on trains.
I'm not sure I want to TRY to turn a fence sitter our way, by turning away a less cultured American who has demonstrated a willingness to stand up for what's right.
Ymmv.
Best to you,
VR
History accurately records who did the most heavy lifting when the shit hit the fan. Doesnt record Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin tomahawking any redcoats who kicked a door in, just sayin...
What I am seeing is..... based on one comment, "I daresay you arent talking to the right people", based on who the speaker of that line talks to versus who I talk to...
The MI protesters exercised two of their constitutional rights, their way, their choice, their manner, their culture.
(1) Wealthy educated whites articulate and act their style. And often seem to believe their way is the only way, anybody else is wrong.
(Not 1) Middle class whites, see above.... most Hiders seem to fall here.
(Not 1) Struggling youth in middle class white, act and articulate their way, and repeatedly ask for equal footing with the two above, along with respect for their strata level.
Poor whites, struggling, generally act in a manner not approved by (1), but accepted on different levels by those following (1), as each gets to know the other personally.
Those who have struggled harder, may protest harder, may fight harder, with less social aplomb, than approved by (1)....
Fuddz, god help us...
Black people, would prefer not getting murdered killed shot while black, etc, and will respond culturally because of the past.
Hispanics will respond culturally based on the treatment received by any of the above.
Are any of them 'wrong' in the manner they choose to protest ?
Who are we to judge right or wrong by them and how they do it ?
If (1)'s way worked for all of us, we would naturally do it because it works for all of us.
Wayne LaPierre shot that in the foot... I think he blew the whole foot off...
Poor whites, blacks, and Hispanics can definitely say (1) and Wayne havent done a whole lot of protesting for them, or much good for them either.
Struggling youth cant identify with (1) or Wayne and other pressures have worked to separate them from less fortunate people.
And I could go on.
Point is, many of those mentioned above, and the MI protesters DO NOT BELIEVE their best interests are being represented and they protest in the way they think best for them. That IS their constitutional right.
Will we deny them their rights because we think it hurts ours ??? Makes us look bad ? Are we going to be that judgmental ?
Are we going us against them, because Hannity says they look like ass clowns, or some people dont like their gear, their looks, their bearing ?
They are fellow American citizens covered by the same rights as each individual posting here.
And we should be talking to them all, daresay, talking to the right people. All of them are the right people, allies, ready to stand against overbearing .Gov.
They are us under different circumstances.
If fence sitters will turn against us for us siding with less desirables, those fence sitters are no different from the German people who watched the Nazis put Jews on trains.
I'm not sure I want to TRY to turn a fence sitter our way, by turning away a less cultured American who has demonstrated a willingness to stand up for what's right.
Ymmv.
Best to you,
VR
History accurately records who did the most heavy lifting when the shit hit the fan. Doesnt record Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin tomahawking any redcoats who kicked a door in, just sayin...
Last edited:
The police didn't open fire on them during the protest did they? Law enforcement would have to consider getting shot themselves trying to make mass arrests or get rowdy towards armed crowds. That's what I meant, The protest itself was a disaster as they disarmed and walked into a pen.
Using good judgement in how I exercise my rights is not the same as conceding my rights.
Honest question for the MI protestors - did they accomplish anything by being armed that they would have not accomplished if unarmed? And there are a number of different ways to have accomplished something. Media attention for one's cause is certainly an accomplishment. Getting access to the capitol building for the purpose of conducting a protest is an accomplishment. Not getting shot by capitol security is an accomplishment. If those things could not have been done unarmed, then good on those folks for bringing guns. They just need to acknowledge that there are potential downfalls to this tactic (poor PR, getting put on the dreaded List is another), and hopefully the pros outweighed the cons. They are free men, I'm not going to tell them what to do; I can only say that I would employ a different tone and approach, and I'm not so confident to claim certainty that my way is better than theirs.
I could go back to the 18th century and point out the parallels that exist between the life under British rule to life under Whitmer's rule but will hold off on that.
Let's take a look at the Battle of Athens Tennessee in 1946. Let me emphasize, that was 1946, not 1846 or 1746.
The Boss Hoggs, the sheriff and his gunsels ran that county while most of the men were at war. It was a tyranny extraordinaire in that county ran by democrats.
The history of the events leading up to and including the fusillade between the veterans and the sheriff & his deputies is well documented.
I submit that it is getting to that point now with some governors, mayors and cops getting drunk with power. Armed individuals lets the tyrants know that if they go on the offensive it could get ugly. So a cop trying to enforce a dictatorial decree should think twice about it before he goes Barney Fife on someone. He may be wanting to collect his pension by "just following orders" but does he want to risk his life for it?
The Cruikshank decision said that the bill of rights was not a limitation on the states and allowed local governments to run over private citizens for decades after that.
What is forgotten in history about the Cruikshank decision was that several hundred men were killed trying to protect themselves from the democrats who had guns. In fact a lot of the gun laws passed after Cruikshank were designed to keep free blacks from arming themselves. We know how that worked out for a lot of them.
Unless we exercise the right to free speech and the right to bear arms simultaneously, we may have neither as long as tyrants are in office.
I repeat, the presence of arms is not to intimidate the tyrants but to keep the tyrants from intimidating the citizenry.
The people that hid Anne Frank broke the law. The people that killed her obeyed the law.
Last edited:
Apparently the cause in Michigan was government exceeding their constitutional authority.
I am herding up cats in my neighborhood to test some ideas
People are going to do what ever they want to regardless with or without guns god bless both sides and if you don't or do like guns well god bless them all . I personally have never found the need or desire for a carry nothing against those that do its all our right and responsibility to protect our self and what we love the best way we can .
Adolf Whitmer is saying that the Michigan State Police are monitoring cell phone conversations to keep track of the coronavirus.
We must keep in mind that she wants to be a benevolent dictator.
Rumor has it she dislikes any comparison to Hitler but prefers the nickname “Evita.”
https://activistmommy.com/whitmer-s...l-the-conversations-around-lockdown-protests/
We must keep in mind that she wants to be a benevolent dictator.
Rumor has it she dislikes any comparison to Hitler but prefers the nickname “Evita.”
https://activistmommy.com/whitmer-s...l-the-conversations-around-lockdown-protests/
Pain and suffering are great teachers! That’s gonna be the only way those motherfuckers will listen!
Similar threads
