Litman: Guns at the Capitol are About Anarchy, Not Liberty

Virus Outbreak Protest Michigan

A protester carries his rifle at the State Capitol in Lansing, Mich.(AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

This is the animating force behind guns in a state Capitol: If you pick up a long gun you’re suddenly a hero in the lineage of Jefferson, a modern-day American revolutionary. In reality, the armed Michigan protesters are the heirs of the benighted Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and the Oklahoma City bomber.

Tree of liberty extremists dwell on the point that this nation took up arms and fought a revolution to rid itself of tyranny. So it did, but in the process, Americans formed a society dedicated to the rule of law, representative government and the peaceful resolution of disputes. The implicit threat of armed protesters — to start shooting if they don’t get their way — is anathema to such a society, and to what the Revolutionary War was all about.

No sound account of the 2nd Amendment justifies the protesters’ assault on bedrock principles of democratic rule. They are neither patriots nor “very good people” but base thugs. The proper response of a civilized democracy is to insist they lay down arms or go to jail.

– Harry Litman in Trump’s latest ‘very good people’ are 2nd Amendment thugs

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    “No sound account of the 2nd Amendment justifies the protesters’ assault on bedrock principles of democratic rule. They are neither patriots nor “very good people” but base thugs. The proper response of a civilized democracy is to insist they lay down arms or go to jail.”
    The same could easily be said about people who violate their oath of office, use the police to oppress their enemies, and strip people of their rights.

    1. avatar Mojomedicineman says:

      Truth.

    2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      Bullshit!
      Ever wonder why there was no violence at the Bundy Ranch, but women and children were slaughtered at Ruby Ridge and Waco? Government thugs knew if they pulled anything, they would not go home.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Ever wonder why there was no violence at the Bundy Ranch, but women and children were slaughtered at Ruby Ridge and Waco? Government thugs knew if they pulled anything, they would not go home.”

        Fear of armed citizens didn’t seem too effective in Bundy 2.

        We have no way to know when and where government agents desist because of fear of lead poisoning. No one can see into the minds of others.

        And I assure you, there are many armed government agents itching to go full firefight with citizens.

        1. avatar Hans says:

          Am I Sam, there are simply too many of us, if that
          ever crossed your mind. Now S-I-P.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Am I Sam, there are simply too many of us, if that
          ever crossed your mind.”

          Too many of whom for what outcome?

        3. avatar chuckers says:

          As long as they are protesting and not shooting I’m not going to side against them. I bet most of their weapons are unloaded just in case they get checked. If our government ever does overstep it’s authority I will not side with it either. Communism, or any other form of unlawful goernment in this country should not be tolerated. Freedom is priceless and we should never give it up. If God gave me free will I should cherish it. If you tell me I have to do something I feel is wrong or imoral I will tell you hell no, if you tell me to do something I don’t want to do you better have a darn good reson for telling me to do it or else you are pissing in the wind. I may not be right all the time but you better be able to show me why I’m not if you want me to agree with you.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If our government ever does overstep it’s authority I will not side with it either.”

          Ah, there’s the rub.

          What defines “overstep”? Is the definition universal, or individual? Which condition drives a ballistic reaction?

        5. avatar MontanaActual says:

          War.

      2. avatar MontanaActual says:

        First thing that came to my mind too. Ruby Ridge and Waco.

    3. avatar Rad Man says:

      Democrat (mob) rule? Uh, no.

    4. avatar anonymous says:

      The implicit threat of armed protesters — to start shooting if they don’t get their way FREEDOM — is anathema to such a society, and to what the Revolutionary War was all about.

      It’s not their “way” that they seek. It is their freedom. And the founders were quite clear on that. A armed society was to deter tyranny. Period. You can go through dozens and dozens of quotes touching on that theme. Litman is wrong on this matter. He is ignoring history. He is ignoring all of their statements, and engaging in his perception of revisionary history in what he would like that history to be. However, it is simply not true:

      “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
      – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

      “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
      – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

      “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
      – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

      Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Speech of Patrick Henry (June 5, 1788)

      There are dozens of these examples. Possibly even over a hundred.

      Further, The armed people at the capital are in fact not shooting people or advocating for anarchy. They are there to make a statement. It’s isn’t just an exercise in 2A rights, but in 1A rights as well. Litman is complaining about it, simply because he doesn’t like it and doesn’t agree.

      1. avatar Mojomedicineman says:

        Right

    5. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says. As uncomfortable as it may be for them, the “base thugs” are the elected progressives who see political oppression in the name of “fighting the virus” as a political expedient.

  2. avatar strych9 says:

    Someone needs to brush up on their Locke.

    We’re founded on Lockeian principles, not Hobbesian ones.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Also this, from the article above:

      “Tree of liberty extremists dwell on the point that this nation took up arms and fought a revolution to rid itself of tyranny. So it did, but in the process, Americans formed a society dedicated to the rule of law, representative government and the peaceful resolution of disputes.”

      True, which is why we’re seeing so much angst and protest. Many in power have been blatantly working to undermine the very Document (USC) they swore an oath to follow, uphold, and defend. Surely the author and his ilk can see the criminality on the part of our politicians?

      Yes. They know. And don’t call me Shirley.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Call you Shirley? Never, Ms. Temple, never.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          She was Mrs Black. But i guess it would be racist to address her that way.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “She was Mrs Black. But i guess it would be racist to address her that way.”

          Would “Ms. Person of Color” work?

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Shirley Temple is a non-alcoholic cocktail.

          My comment is meant to be a subtle jab and a joke. A non-sexual double entendre.

  3. avatar Roman of Texas says:

    Digging the FS2000. Wish I could find a tri-rail for mine.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      I heard you mom has one

      1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        Wow. What a non-burn…

      2. avatar enuf says:

        How is that an insult? Lots of “Moms” are excellent shots, own and carry firearms. My mother, sadly passed on some twenty years now, was an excellent shot with a .38 Special in an old police surplus Colt.

        1. avatar Lance Manion says:

          He’s saying the guy’s mom has a tactical tuna.

        2. avatar chuckers says:

          My sister was one hell of a shot with a pistol, God rest her soul. SHe served proudly as a deputy sherriff in a Houston Suburb. By the way she hit a 1:72 scale airplane off the top of a fence post on her first shot when her farm raised brothers emptied a gun and missed it. That was the first time she ever fired a gun. She listened when she was told how to aim I guess. I don’t know if her daughter took after her because I’ve never seen her shoot but I wouldn’t bet against her.

    2. avatar Ron says:

      Yeah I’m just happy to see an F2000 get some air time.

  4. avatar Dude says:

    Does the author have an article denouncing Antifa congregating and intimidating people? In Portland, Antifa was assaulting random folks who weren’t even protesting or counter-protesting anything.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      The antifa weren’t carrying guns, so therefore they were totally democratic and quintessentially American, and everything they did was okay. Duh.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        So sticks, cans filled with concrete, and baseball bats don’t count then…

        1. avatar The Truth About Antifa says:

          And bike locks. Don’t forget the weapon that defined the antifa Berkeley protest. Wielded by a tenured university professor and long time member of several violent communist organizations.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So sticks, cans filled with concrete, and baseball bats don’t count then…”

          Correct. Sticks, bats, and cans of concrete are not guns. See?

          And Antifa was so enraged and exasperated by the deplorables, and Orangeman, that they couldn’t find any other way to express themselves; deplorables and gun owners created a situation so desperate that the poor, distraught, compassionate, caring members of Antifa had to use desperate measures lest they go insane. Now do you see?

          Oh, the horror, the horror.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The antifa weren’t carrying guns, so therefore they were totally democratic and quintessentially American, and everything they did was okay. Duh.”

        Yep. And those concrete milkshakes? Well, a little milk won’t hurt anyone. We should all want to know a member of Antifa, they are a tribute to the neighborhood. Antifa, however, should show a little gratitude. If it weren’t for Trump, NRA, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Koch Brothers, Salvation Army and Chic-fil-A, the Antifa would have to find jobs.

  5. avatar NORDNEG says:

    This is the result of taking history & geography & eddy 🦅 out of the classrooms, you end up with IDIOTS like this Harry Litman chap…

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      And he hasn’t figured out or will not admit that we have a Republic. Obey the Constitution and observe the Bill of Rights and the ” guns ” go home. The British didn’t much like it when the ” guns ” came out either.

  6. avatar Just Sayin (OG) says:

    Dear Mr Litman,
    Please read a history book.
    I mean, REALLY read a history book.

    Sincerely,
    8th Grade Student That Has Read a History Book

    1. avatar Just Sayin (OG) says:

      And a book or two on philosophy wouldn’t hurt…

    2. avatar Curious Creedmoor says:

      He’d have to learn to read before that could happen.

  7. avatar Roh-Dog says:

    Ok, so the Branch Davidians were bad and deserved to be burned alive by the Alphabet Bois for…reasons.
    And that goes for anyone else who dare stand up to your brand of authority.
    Roger that.

    1. avatar Roh-Dog says:

      Also, Litman strikes me as the type of clown that prays five times a day to black and white photos of Black Panthers armed with assorted arms (but at least one M-1 carbine) holding down some nexus of white oppression; court house, city hall, capitol, police station, etc.

    2. avatar James W Crawford says:

      Don’t forget the women and children who were crushed to death or buried alive by the FBI tank an hour before the fire started.

  8. avatar Dan W says:

    Litman, another Algonquin, what a coincidence.

  9. avatar pwrserge says:

    Somebody should beat into these cunts that the US is not a Democracy and will never BE a Democracy.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Every time I hear some fool/tool of either side utter the phrase “Our Democracy”.I quit listening to anything they may have to say, as they should be beaten with the bloody stump of their own arm.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        That’s silly as can be. When’s the last time you tried to hold onto the bloody stump of an arm, while you beat the previous owner senseless? Sheeeeit, man, pick up a stick!

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Don’t knock it til you try it.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      The “we’re a democracy” canard has been alive and damaging this nation for a very long time.

      The 17th Amendment, adopted in 1913, established the direct election of senators instead of the original constitutional process where they were selected by state legislators. More democracy, more better…except they’re entirely creatures of the D.C. swamp now.

      The 16th Amendment, also ratified in 1913, let the federal government levy taxes without going through the states first or apportioning tax money to the states. That was direct democracy in action. It’s what the states and the people wanted.

      More democracy and a powerful central government — but you can’t have both. States are powerless and mostly irrelevant now because of democracy, and ironically, voters are, too. The Founding Fathers were looking long-term, but it turns out democracy is incredibly shortsighted.

  10. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Apparently the author of this opinion has never read the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps he should. As with many liberal leftists, they ignore what doesn’t fit their agenda. One cannot understand the Constitution without understanding the Declaration.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    1. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

      Gunny,

      Undeniably true . . . and apparently irrelevant in our “modern” world. The part they keep missing is “. . . deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ” I am seriously considering withdrawing my consent. We all should. What local, state, and federal government has done, under color of authority, during this Pandemic Theater is a direct and unforgivable assault against our INHERENT (I would say ‘God-given’, but I’ll accept support from atheist libertarians) rights.

      Keep it up, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, J. Pritzker, Lsura Kelly, Larry Hogan, et al., and you’re going to find out, the hard way, that tar and feathers still exist.

      I. AM. NOT. YOUR. SUBJECT. YOU work for ME. Now, run along and f*** right the hell off.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        Just an anecdote:

        My life hasn’t changed at all during the pandemic. Five days a week, I roll out of bed about 7:00 PM, or 19:00 for people who can tell time. Sit around playing with puppies, browsing the intartubes, and eating, until about 22:00. Pull my boots on, climb in the Trailblazzer, and drive 50 miles to work. Put in 8 hours keeping stuff together for the production crew, doing what maintenance I can, PM’ing dryers, thermolators, injection machines, etc. Head home, maybe stop at the store, come in the house, and if I’ve beaten the wife home, make coffee. She has worked right through this pandemic like me. One of us cooks something, we tend to the pets, then sit around browsing on the intartubes again. Weekends, a little gardening, mow some lawn, then mess around on the intartubes some more.

        More people should be essential, I guess. Neither the wife nor I have noticed much change, except the restaurants are closed, and everyone wears silly looking masks.

        Wonder what life is like out on the road? Driving truck must be an adventure right now.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Put in 8 hours keeping stuff together for the production crew, doing what maintenance I can, PM’ing dryers, thermolators, injection machines, etc.”

          Ever notice how all the rabid lockdown voices are people with soft hands? People who have disdain for people with rough hands? People who still get paid, even if they don’t go to a workplace? People who would rather all the rough hands folks be on permanent welfare?

          I gag when I see all the smooth hand people preening on TV saying how “We are all in this together.”

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

        Ever really thought that through? Not being belligerent, here. Really wondering if people understand the implications of “consent”?

        Does “consent” mean unanimous? Ninety percent? Fifty percent? Zero tolerance?

        Does “consent” have stratification? One consents to the majority on things that one cares nothing about? One refuses to consent on a single “hot button” issue, thus justifying rebellion? One refuses to consent on some undetermined combination and number of high and low priority issues, igniting rebellion?

        The framers of the constitution, the first revolutionaries in the nation, were not the majority view of the populace. Implied in the DOI is the statement that the minority refused to consent to governance from London, and the minority refusal to consent justified revolution. The framers had a mutually agreed list of non-consent principles. Was that list exhaustive, or representative? Where is that list for the revolutionaries of today? Where is the organizing body for the revolutionaries of today?

        In a Republic, what does “consent of the governed” really mean?

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          And if you try to withdraw your consent, our “Democracy” will dispatch rough men to kill you, your spouse, your child and your dog.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And if you try to withdraw your consent, our “Democracy” will dispatch rough men to kill you, your spouse, your child and your dog.”

          Yeah, I think that was in all the newspapers at one time.

  11. avatar tdiinva says:

    He is correct. Not everything is about guns. The fact that they were able to walk around at a demonstration with guns without being harrased by anyone and that during a time when they claimed to be locked in their homes they were somehow able to make it to the State capital kinda of undermines the claim that “We gotta show ’em who is in charge.”

    To Planned Parenthood everything is about abortion. Don’t be like Planned Parenthood. When it’s about guns being your gun. Don’t bring your gun that you don’t normally carry when it’s not about guns.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Not really. Very few jackbooted thugs are willing to eat a bullet. That’s the point of the 2nd amendment.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        I am going to deconstruct this for you Ivan.

        Let’s start with the meme that they were locked in their houses. How did they get to Lansing? Did Scotty beam them over? And nobody bothered the gun toters. Sounds to me that not only are they not locked in their houses but it appears that both their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights were respected. Not only that, if they don’t like conditions in Michigan Amtrak and the Airlines are still operating. They can travel to South Dakota and be free. The entire demonstration was based a false premise propigated by the groups that astroturfed the event.

        And let’s get serious, what real resister is going to show up in the State capital in full kit so he can be photographed and identified by Big Brother? Only a clown would do that. But did you notice how the gun toters seemed to be the exact stereotype that the left uses to demonize gun owners? How hard would it be to run a false flag op? Even if they were just clowns it might as well be a false flag because that is what the media is going to show and they know that “The Armed Intelligentsia” and TYM are going to fall for it.

        Demonstrations need to stay focused. Guns at a non gun event distract from the message.

        And if they wanted to take out our intrepid heros a couple of SWAT snipers would have gotten the job done. How hard would it be to hit a couple of fat guys with guns?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          No smart one, the point is that the large armed body of demonstrators can’t be FORCED to disperse. Resisting tyranny has stages. We’re nowhere near the “bushes start whistling” stage. We’re at the “we’re going to protest your retardation and bring our guns so that you don’t get the bright idea to try and pull a Tiananmen.” stage.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          You are an idiot living in a fantasy world. The guys toting guns, if not false flaggers, had zero impact on the safety of the protesters because nobody was threatening them and nobody intended to . It’s at best make believe and at worst a false flag operation.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah, because cops totally haven’t been caught on camera beating the piss out of people who defy these draconian orders… Oh… wait…

        4. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          Nobody intended to huh? Didn’t know they made Psychics. Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

    2. avatar John A. Smith says:

      I’m with you, man. I don’t get what the heck guns have to do with open up protests. If you’re protesting gun restrictions due to Covid, I get it – civil disobedience with specific regard to the right being infringed.

      Bringing a gun to an open up protest is kind of like staging a same sex marriage at an open up protest: yes, they’re both constitutional rights, but they’re non sequitur to the issue at hand.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Okay, playing devil’s advocate here. What do firearms have to do with it? How does one stand up to tyranny?

        1. avatar Someone says:

          By having public same sex sex. I mean marriage.

      2. avatar Texican says:

        I must have missed the memo. When did same-sex marriage get codified into the Constitution? Don’t tell me some black robed dude made it that way. It’s not in the Constitution and God willing it will never be.
        And, to speak to the article; Freedom is slavery!

      3. avatar Doug says:

        You never know what the “authorities” are going to do , and they all have guns. Only makes sense to me to bring mine.

      4. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        oy. this mindset has permeated a decent percentage of the related topics.
        there is no where in this country that firearms should not be present. i want them at the birth of my children and the death of my parents. they should appear at all celebrations and gatherings. to separate the normalcy of carrying arms from the topic of protest is mental masturbation suitable for ninnies.
        bring ’em. bring it. a pressure cooker will make the toughest cut fork tender.

        1. avatar John A. Smith says:

          “i want them at the birth of my children and the death of my parents.”

          Great line! They were present for the births of my children and the deaths of my parents. But I wasn’t waving them in anyone’s face to try to make a point. I treated them exactly like critical articles of clothing; they’re like shoes or pants to me. I put them on, and they’re just… there, as they have been for decades.

        2. avatar Paul says:

          That, exactly. If twenty people show up at some random event – a bad automobile accident – and 8 or 12 of them have firearms about their persons, it shouldn’t even be noteworthy. All of them are likely to stow their weapons in an appropriate manner, and lend a helping hand to those in need. Who cares if they have a sidearm, or a shiny belt buckle, tennis shoes, a ball cap, holes in their shoes, or big floppy ears? None of it matters, except the help they offer.

          Ditto for daily events – going to the bank, grocery shopping, browsing the car lot, or walking through the park.

        3. avatar Hans says:

          tsb, why are you crapping on peoples’ rights.

          Just go to a safe place and SIP.

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Maybe instead of issuing “orders” various levels of government should merely suggest or advise people to wear masks and stay home and practice social distancing.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Maybe instead of issuing “orders” various levels of government should merely suggest or advise people to wear masks and stay home and practice social distancing.”

          This is a classic, textbook conflict of rights. Does an individual have a natural, human or civil right to spread a deadly disease? If so, no one can be quarantined for any disease. If a group of individuals find that a disease presents an existential threat, do those combined individuals have a right to self-protect by quarantining the threat? If so, what is the limit to what malady can be quarantined?

        3. avatar Tempest says:

          “Does an individual have a natural, human or civil right to spread a deadly disease?”

          But we’re not quarantining people with a deadly disease. We’re quarantining EVERYONE (with a few exceptions). There is a difference.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But we’re not quarantining people with a deadly disease. We’re quarantining EVERYONE (with a few exceptions). There is a difference.”

          This total lockdown is beyond dangerous, now. But the question remains. Whose rights are superior? The right of people to move about freely? The right of a community to take defensive measures that limit the movement of other individuals.

          Would the response to an outbreak of Bubonic Plague in humans be any different? Would the nation be locked down until the disease could be contained?

          RIghts in conflict.

      5. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

        Wow. Just “WOW”!!

        You’ve seen people tased and beaten by cops (Google it, the video is out there) for filming an “arrest” of someone “defying” social distancing orders, a salon owner sent to jail because she refused to “bow to the man”, a paddle boarder arrested for . . . paddle boarding 100′ offshore. By himself.

        And you’re asking “why are guns relevant”?????

        You are a special kind of stupid, aren’t you???

      6. avatar John Memoli says:

        You do know that the British army’s incursion in Massachusetts, and the following Battle at Bunker Hill, was about gun control. The British military was marching to seize armaments belonging to the colonists? Liberty without firearms can come only from the governors. Without the second amendment, you or your progeny would soon be stripped of all the other rights you hold dear.

      7. avatar KENNETH S CARTER says:

        I disagree. The presence of arms is a reminder to the tyrants that be, that, as Jefferson said in a letter to William Stephens Smith, “the people preserve the spirit of resistance”. (full quote below)
        Further, if there is a noise late at night on your property and a child goes to investigate versus a fully armed adult, which will be more likely to deter an aggressor? The lock-down orders are inextricably tied to the firearms ownership issue since many of these petty tyrants seek complete disarmament of the people.
        If they’ll treat an armed society this way, imagine how they’ll treat a fully disarmed and compliant one.

        “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. … God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

      8. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        It’s a warning John. Despite the gun nuts, amazingly no one got shot.

  12. avatar Sam I Am says:

    A wise scholar, long ago, noted, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify the self.”

    My take? Though things be legal, doing something because you can does not always prosper the important message you may be trying to communicate. Perhaps more to the point, “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity…a time to tear up and a time to mend…”. “….whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played?”

    The choir should not be the only audience, if you seek to persuade.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      agreed, and no matter how subtle the persuasion may be, bring a gun.

    2. avatar Texican says:

      And another wise scholar said there is a time for everything. And it is the time to show tyrants that they are way out of line!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “And another wise scholar said there is a time for everything. And it is the time to show tyrants that they are way out of line!”

        There is, indeed. However….

        The provocations, starting at least in 1993, beyond what the founders endured prior to throwing off the yoke have stirred nothing in the way of showing tyrants they are way out of line.

        Do POTG really expect that just making noise, and dressing like SpecOps project determination to end tyranny? No. Why?

        When it is time to end tyranny, you end it. Like Tico said, “If you’re gonna shoot, shoot; don’t talk.” Otherwise, show up in large numbers as intelligent persons peaceably assembling “…to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Because unarmed protestors have a nasty habit of having firehoses and dogs sent after them. It’s harder to jackboot when you have to deal with the possibility of return fire.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s harder to jackboot when you have to deal with the possibility of return fire.”

          Water cannon and dogs would likely fail the “imminent” standard justifying use of deadly force in return. It is even a coin toss that if Antifa showed up and started throwing concrete blocks at protesters, armed pro-constitution gunfire would be considered justified.

          To just be nasty about it, armed protesters at these “warning” demonstrations are more like people who own a gun for protection, but intend nothing more than hoping the sight of the gun will scare away bad guys. One wonders if every one of those armed protesters told their loved ones that morning, “I may not be alive this afternoon, but you are taken care of, and will want for nothing.”

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          An ounce of deterrence is worth a pound of lead.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “An ounce of deterrence is worth a pound of lead.”

          To be a “deterrent”, the activity must be: possible, certain, believable.

          I have to keep pounding on the fact that armed resistance has proven over and again to be a myth. Why is it Waco (similar to Lexington Green, only more so) didn’t ignite the fire? Why is it Waco and Ruby Ridge combined didn’t light the fire? Why is it Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy 1 didn’t light the fire? Incident piled upon incident, and nothing.

          Police, NG and the military are not deterred by our guns. They are back by political calculation of government controllers. Not because government is afraid of the deterrent, but because they consider it negligible at best, ineffective at worst.

          And, I add one more government attack on citizens: May 14, 1985, Philadelphia. Police dropped a satchel bomb made of C4 and Tovex TR2 on a compound of people in the MOVE organization. Dropped a bomb. Eleven were killed, including 5 children. 65 near-by houses were destroyed. Survivors of the attack were awarded $1.5million in damages, ten years later. Literally police over-kill, and the patriots remained mute. Maybe because MOVE was a a black organization, in a black neighborhood?

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          I didn’t see cops getting trigger happy and assaulting protesters like they did in NYC? Did you?

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I didn’t see cops getting trigger happy and assaulting protesters like they did in NYC? Did you?”

          Don’t know how that fits in the conversation, but no, I didn’t see cops being trigger happy, or assaulting protesters. I also do not see evidence that the protester weapons were the only thing preventing cops being trigger happy, and assaulting the crowd. Cops had guns, protesters had guns, nobody got hurt. That’s all the takeaway that is justified.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh, and as for MOVE… could be the fact that they were a domestic terrorist organization that had previously been handled with kid gloves by the cops in an incident that led to a shootout? (They were squatting in a property, were ordered to vacate, agreed to do so if their buddies were released from jail and then proceeded to continue squatting even when the cops lived up to their end of the bargain.) Nah… Couldn’t be…

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…could be the fact that they were a domestic terrorist organization that had previously been handled with kid gloves by the cops in an incident that led to a shootout?”

          I would say that a $1.5million judgement against the cops (city) indicates government excess. Killing five children, and incinerating an entire neighborhood (65 domiciles) might be considered unwarranted.

          From you statement, can we conclude that when government finds itself losing to criminals (which is what revolutionaries will be) there is no limit on the amount of force government can use to resolve the matter? If so, we owe Swalwell an apology.

        9. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          I was a little too young and in the wrong place to speak out when the MOVE incident happened, but there was quite a quiet uprising following Waco and Ruby ridge and that is what set the stage and made it possible for the armed but peaceful protests we have today. I was part of that and participated in much of the political and protest activity that followed. I did speak out in 2016 against Dallas police using a bomb to arbitrarily kill the BLM member who had slain a number of cops and civilians, and it had nothing at all to do with him being black or me being white. I remember distinctly telling people that the man had rights despite his crimes, had presumption of innocence like everyone else and should have been brought to trial and that cops are not judge effing Dredd. I said this to nominal libertarians who, like many in the gun community, seem to forget the principles of liberty under what they think are exigent circumstances. However, like these emergency orders, there will always be an exigent circumstance for bad people to use to slip one by good people, and for that reason we should always stand for liberty for all people in all situations and circumstances.

          The armed protesters today are not there to deter the police and the military directly. They are there to deter their masters, the politicians. It is a statement not only that we will resist the jack booted thugs enforcing unconstitutional laws and orders but that we know who issues those orders and will act to defend ourselves from them as well, and more directly than they would probably like.

          As has been pointed out the reason that some people in some places get rolled over and some don’t is partially because they are openly armed and willing to show themselves and publicly display their willingness to resist and also that they are more of the mainstream than the lamestream media and the politicians and the leftists want to admit.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They are there to deter their masters, the politicians. ”

          So far, that has been quite successful.

          I lived through Waco, just 90min south of where I was stationed. I do not remember any sort of organized, wide-spread resistance to government excess. To date, yours is the first and only expression I’ve seen/heard that Waco started a movement that led to more people becoming armed, more people representing a deterrent to any further government attack. Revisit Lexington Green, and compare it to Waco. Where’s the revolution? After 27 year of acquiesance, we cannot point and say Waco was the start.

          Just so you know, people who cannot have their lives inconvenienced so they can attend a pro-2A rally in their state (many of whom will drive hours, to attend a Trump rally), will not be there when the bullets are flying.

  13. avatar enuf says:

    This Litman person is wrong. It is neither Anarchy nor Liberty at issue here.

    It is rank stupidity, or stupidity in the ranks, and getting the wrong issue wrapped up in the trials and tribulations of a pandemic.

    Carrying guns to a protest of any topic or issue is perfectly fine. Those guns should be on your hip, in a holster, for the most part.

    Turning out battle ready on this issue is a disaster. Shows that those doing it are entirely out of touch with the problems being dealt with. Worse, they are deluded if they think anyone but their own fellow protesters and supporters is in the least bit swayed. The opposite is happening, the general public and the politicians are pushed in the opposite direction by these displays of battle readiness in the face of a pandemic.

    The issues to protest are the incompetence of elected leaders who failed to lead in so very many ways. Of a Congress that failed to replenish the Strategic National Stockpile. Of industry that moved so much production off-shore that USA factories could be run 24/7 and never hope to meet demand.

    Finally the failure to comprehend that, while the “orders” from above should never have been orders, it is exactly those methods that have prevented worst case scenarios from becoming reality.

    Now we are going the wrong way with about half the population seeing relaxation of containment efforts. All before an effective anti-viral treatment is readily available or even better, while any vaccine is months away. On top of that the PPE situation remains sporadic.

    But sure, let’s all simply comfort ourselves with this foolishness that it’s not a pandemic, that we are being herded about by a tyranny and somehow mustering a citizen’s militia will fix it.

    Ya’ll do know there’s nobody to shoot at? Don’t you?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      “Finally the failure to comprehend that, while the “orders” from above should never have been orders, it is exactly those methods that have prevented worst case scenarios from becoming reality.”

      There’s scientific proof of that? The only people that caught the Covid were the ones that didn’t shelter in place? Is that why so many elderly people have died? They were going into work anyway, against orders? Your statement may be a bit premature.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        At least the folks stuck in the nursing homes were safe…

    2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      don’t be a dope. there will be no vaccine. get of the couch and put some meat in the deep freeze.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        The virus is muting into a weak form. Virolugists have noted a significant number of changes in recent weeks. The wave of asymptomatic cases is a sign that the virus will become inert in a matter of w few months just as SARS and MERS have.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Good news

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The wave of asymptomatic cases is a sign that the virus will become inert in a matter of w few months just as SARS and MERS have.”

          Heresy ! Heresy, I say. Burn the witch/wiccan !!

    3. avatar GuyInWI says:

      This has got to be the dumbest thing I have read today. Almost as bad as the authors rant about rule of law. If the Governement had any respect for the rule of law we would not be locking up and or fining people for exercising basic freedoms. Go to Hawaii and break quarantine and see what happens to you.

      You apparently are out of touch with reality, if there ever was a time to be demonstrating that we the people will use force now is it. Maybe you should carry a dildo then? That will show them, cocks not Glocks.

      I read a CNN article saying this was fine because the court ruled it could detain Japanese people during WWII. I suppose you agree because greater good and all. This is almost the same thing, but the whole nation. Freedom is about the individual not as a collective the Founders of this country could not be more specific not to mention their distrust for Government.

    4. avatar jwm says:

      Guns should absolutely be carried by protesters. Look what happened at Kent State when only the .gov had guns. How about freedom marchers being fire hosed and the dogs turned on them?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Look what happened at Kent State when only the .gov had guns.”

        The “protesters” (thugs) at Kent State were not engaging in peaceful assembly. They were rock-throwing, privileged, leftist drones. After a coupla days of armed (with rocks) attacks on the soldiers, there was a ballistic response. No excuse for it, soldiers should have never been there (unless the governor declared martial law). Point is, Kent is not an example of unarmed, peaceful protesters.

        POTG would declare that someone throwing rocks, at close range represents a serious threat of grievous bodily harm, that rocks are “arms”. That being so, would a civilian be justified in using deadly force in defense? If so, why should soldiers placed to quell a riot be held to higher standards?

        Kent State was not a peaceful sit-in. Find another complaint.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Four students were murdered at Kent State. Two of them were girls. Two were protesters, while the other two were simply walking to class. One of the murdered young men was a member of the campus ROTC. None of the four was older than 20.

          You go ahead and root for the fascists, boy. If they can shoot an innocent 20 year old from the ROTC, they can shoot you.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You go ahead and root for the fascists, boy.”

          Practice reading comprehension. There were two important elements:
          – I noted that the shootings had no excuse
          – I noted the protests were not peaceful

          1. Nothing I wrote endorsed the shootings
          2. Kent State is not an example of government assaulting a peaceful protest

        3. avatar Ing says:

          I’m a big fan of both/and in situations like this.

          Sam has a good point; these were not the peaceful protesters we’re led to envision. They were rock-throwing leftist savages who were out of their gourds and engaging in dangerous behavior. AND they didn’t need to be shot at. And armed government goons (which is what they were enraged about) shouldn’t have been occupying that space, either.

        4. avatar Ralph says:

          So the kids who had nothing to do with the protest were simply collateral damage? Geez, are you that much of a shill?

          They were murdered by the almighty state. They weren’t the first, and they weren’t the last.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So the kids who had nothing to do with the protest were simply collateral damage? Geez, are you that much of a shill?”

          Your are running off the rails in your sanctimony. Get down off your high horse, and read the comment.

          The Kent State incident was not a peaceful protest. Period. End of discussion.

          Whatever the outcome, the students were rioting and throwing rocks, a la Antifa. You’re unhappy with Antifa throwing concrete, swinging bicycle locks? The students at Kent State were no different.

          People inaccurately use Kent State as evidence of police and military attacking and shooting peaceful, flower children protesters who were simply carrying signs and singing “Give Peace A Chance”. The protesters physically attacked the police and military with deadly weapons. Here is the law…you start a riot, use deadly weapons, and someone not involved is killed in the chaos? You don’t walk away with no accountability. In Ohio, physically attacking a police officer is a Class 1 Felony. If an innocent dies because of your action, you can be charged with felony murder. Innocents died at Kent State. Students who would have lived but for the violent attacks committed by fellow students.

          I came of age during the Kent State era. I knew the types of students who were behind the riot. After completing pilot training, I was visiting my former ROTC commander when the Kent State riot went ballistic. It was a no-win situation for the school administration, the police, the military on scene. It was a scenario many of us, as students, knew was so dangerous that we avoided the Antifa-like crowds and demonstrations. The student unrest on my campus was muted, but visible. But the privileged, self-centered, parent despising element was present and known.

          So let’s talk about the deaths. The students throwing rocks escalated the matter, believing they were immune to correction or punishment. They believed they had a moral right to destroy, and attack with weapons, those they considered “the man”. Those such students invited whatever response arose. The uninvolved students deserved to not be endangered by the anarchist students, even indirectly. So, morally, I say those innocents were killed because of the anarchists (protesters), and the anarchists are completely responsible for the outcome.

          Should the police and military have responded with gunfire? Under one standard, no. They should have been trained in riot suppression using non-lethal means (unpreparedness was a direct contributor to the over-reaction that led to innocent deaths). Being so ill-prepared, those particular individuals representing authority, should not have been present, at all. In this respect, the leadership of police and military contributed to the deaths of innocents. Nonetheless, those on the front line responded to an attack. They did not launch an unprovoked attack on mild-mannered teenagers holding a sit-in. The Kent State event was not Waco.

  14. avatar anarchyst says:

    I disagree with the premise that arms held by citizens should not be displayed in government buildings, especially the capitol.

    When it comes to the supremacy of citizens, politicians have lost “the fear of God’, and routinely step on the rights of us citizens with impunity.

    Witness Michigan “governor” Whitmer criticizing us Michiganders who chose to legally protest her”lockdown” order. We were called “racists” and other names for merely expressing our God-given right to “freely assemble” and present our “list of grievances”.

    Litman is dead wrong on this one.

    Being armed IS showing the politicians “who’s boss”, rightly so. They are our “servants”, NOT our “bosses”. PERIOD.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      It’s off topic. Hell yes citizens should be and are by natural right entitled to carry firearms in all public buildings. But showing up battle ready , in full ammo bearing kit, has the exact opposite impact of what these protesters seek.

      Politicians fully comprehend that is a minority action, completely divorced from the realities of the troubles we are dealing with. They are not being scared, they are thinking that these people are out of touch with reality.

      Which they are.

      If it were a protest over an anti-gun law or administration, it would be a very different thing.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        why make the distinction. are you the fashion police?
        me, i’m a fashion plate.
        one thing you can say about camo guys is, they blend.

      2. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

        Right, Karen.

        Take your stupid virtue signaling elsewhere, Karen.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If reading a review of reality is uncomfortable, why? If examining beliefs is uncomfortable, why? If the comfortable response to serious intellectual challenge is slinging insults, why?

          This blog is not an echo chamber.

  15. avatar Huntmaster says:

    The writer didn’t have a problem with hundreds of the people’s servants showing up with clubs, firearms and kitted out to start flinging tear gas and pepper spray did he? Respect has to work in both directions. The people haven’t been feeling the love for quite a while.

  16. avatar jakee308 says:

    ” Americans formed a society dedicated to the rule of law, representative government and the peaceful resolution of disputes.”

    That’s all well and good but when the gov’t begins to deny the citizens that rule of law and representative government and peaceful resolution of disputes, then the citizen is entitled, nay, required to react against that government for it’s own freedom and safety.

    The founders themselves knew that gov’t by men will always tend to tyranny. That’s because of the intrinsic negative qualities of men in that they will seek more power, more money more of everything. And eventually to get that they begin to trample on the rights of others.

    And when it’s those in government who begin to become tyrants then the citizen can only react with force as the government will have blocked all the trappings of freedom and the rule of law.

    And those who carry a weapon to a protest (and it’s not really a protest, it’s a demand that the government cease it’s illegal and anti constitutional actions) are putting those people in government on notice what the next step will entail.

    Now I wouldn’t be brave enough to stand up like that and make myself a target for LE. I would agree with the sentiment that that will be the next step we’ll have to take if government doesn’t back down.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…putting those people in government on notice what the next step will entail.”

      Such demonstrations have proven, again and again, to be “…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” The tyrants look about the landscape, and find things as they have always been, people complying with authority. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy 1 and 2. The tyrants acted, and the people slept.

      If defenders of the constitution cannot persuade the public of the rightness of the cause, persuade the public to vote against onerous restrictions, how does parading firearms in a demonstration change the “hearts and minds”? Sending a message? Since 1993? Twenty seven years of messaging, and things only worsen?

      Again, I ask, “Where/what is the bright Red Line?” Am recommending or promoting revolution? Nope. Not at all. I am recommending/promoting that the energy wasted on displays of firepower be used to rally political support via campaigns and public advertisements wherever ads can be purchased. Persuade, don’t antagonize unnecessarily.

      And, in conclusion, look to the episode in Dallas where some armed people claimed to be protecting the rights of a salon owner to operate her business in order to feed her children, and allow her employees to feed their children. What happened? Cops showed up and quietly arrested everyone. If the armed protectors were serious, why did they surrender meekly? Why bring firearms that were never to actually be used against the agents of “tyrants”? Those protectors will likely forever lose their ability to be legally armed, ever again. Where is the victory? Where is the persuasion? Where are the cowed tyrants?

      1. avatar Texican says:

        Your points are invalid. Anerican Patriots with guns caused the .gov to back down in the Bundy situation.

        1. avatar jakee308 says:

          Sam, the founders didn’t “Persuade” anyone except by the use of force. We didn’t violate the rules first.

          The government has stepped over the line and now expects us to keep obeying even tho they’ve changed the rules.

          That’s not going to happen. I’m not really out to persuade anyone if I have to go after the government. I’m out to stop them from taking my liberty and putting me in a collar or maybe just sending me to an oven as being superfluous and nonessential.

          I’m defending myself. I’ll be quite happy to work with others who have the same goal.

          You’re living in a world of the past when we all played by the rules and the rules meant something.

          That hasn’t been the cases for about 30 years.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You’re living in a world of the past when we all played by the rules and the rules meant something.”

          Nope. I am pointing out that the modern “patriots” have been observers while government acted more egregiously since 1985 than the founders would have tolerated. Yet, here we are, talking big, and doing nothing.

          Armed patriots turned up to protest government overreach. What was the message? “You better watch it, bud. Next time…next time…”, and walked away. Why is the current series of tyrannical government action not sufficient to kick off the uprising? Need some bodies first? Go back to Waco. People doing no harm. People declaring they would defend themselves against government. So, government cried out, “Guns! Guns with children exposed to guns.” And then launched a military style attack (US military was included) on a compound, using Vietnam tactics – kill the children in order to save the children. Where were patriots? Why was that abomination of government tyranny not avenged? Why did the revolution not start, then and there?….Because there ain’t gonna be no revolution. There ain’t no government provocation the populace won’t stand for.

          The new rules for today are to gun-up, dress like SpecOps commandos, shake our collective fist, and stamp our feet, always threatening, “the next time….”. And the net result is we don’t have a revolution, we don’t have a new, third civil war. We aren’t destroying the nation through violence and bloodshed. Despite our protestations, we play by the rules of politics. We protest, and we vote. We are a sensible people, and realize utterly destroying the nation through gunfire will leave us the worse for it.

          But, we are also a naive people, believing government will one day send squads of goons to every house to arrest gun owners. While all along, government wins more hearts and minds everyday, with the idea that a gun-free nation will be paradise. Nibbling away at our natural, human and civil rights as armed citizens.

          The only viable, and effective path is through the ballot box. Talk of revolution does not defeat the encroachment on our rights, it only distracts our energy.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Your points are invalid. Anerican Patriots with guns caused the .gov to back down in the Bundy situation.”

          I’m afraid you miss the point, here. All the events listed were incidents where government agents were out of control, threatening Americans with deadly force. The fact that one event (Bundy 1) didn’t result in bloodshed does not negate the intention of the government. Also note, all the patriots across the nation stood silent, except for some locally. There was no general uprising, politically, or militarily by the patriots. As was so for the other incidents listed. At Bundy 2, the government did act, and again the patriots stood silent.

          If the events listed did not ignite an armed response by patriots, what/where is that bright line? A hair salon in Dallas? Armed patriots were “protecting” the salon owner (from whom or what is unclear). The armed patriots quietly surrendered, and were jailed. There was no general patriot uprising.

          For 27 years we have heard about how the government risks finding out “what’s next”. What has government learned?

          The cartridge box is not a viable option, and no one can identify when it will be. We just open ourselves to effective ridicule pretending that waving guns at government is effective in anything but gaining even less respect.

        4. avatar Ing says:

          No, YOUR point is invalid. Seriously, though…

          The Bundy Ranch standoff showed that the government *can* be made to back down by people who are armed and sufficiently determined. And it was also a c8nt-hair away from ending in a government massacre of peaceful marchers followed instantly by a massacre of the government’s men.

          But has the government’s peaceful loss there, and in the Malheur standoff trials, shown said government the error of its ways? Do the progbots in charge respect the rights of American citizens now?

          Not even close. It’s barely a blip on the radar. Hasn’t changed anything, except maybe for reminding the enemy that their best tactic always was and still is to strangle America slowly with propaganda, lawfare, and bureaucratic red tape.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Hasn’t changed anything, except maybe for reminding the enemy that their best tactic always was and still is to strangle America slowly with propaganda, lawfare, and bureaucratic red tape.”

          @Ing –

          We are agreeing too much today. Not only is that confusing to many here, it could even be downright dangerous.

  17. avatar Cthulhu2020 says:

    Fuck Litman.

    And Hannity.

    1. avatar tired of it says:

      and, as of yesterday’s third hour of Sean, Bill O’Reilly.

      1. avatar Hans says:

        Tired, did you mean Bill “inside outside auto parts” O’O’ Reilly?

  18. avatar DerryM says:

    In eight quoted sentences he says three things that are true. Then, he uses the other five sentences to lie about and distort the truth of the three. Interesting how it takes nearly twice as much BullSh*t to try to bury truth.

    I thought the purpose of armed protest was to protect Citizens exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceably assemble and seek redress of grievances from the threat of violence by a tyrannical Government. We are at a point where the People cannot have trust in the Government they Consent to and the Government is beginning to fear an Armed Populace. All things considered that sounds like a correct and necessary balance point at present.

    I do not know of any recent instance where any Armed Protestor in any State directly threatened anyone else with a firearm, or discharged a firearm in the course of a protest. [If anyone knows of such an event, I would like to hear about it, please.] Does the presence of firearms at a protest imply the threat of violence by Citizens, or does said presence balance the implicit threat of violence by Armed Government Agents who are always present at such assemblies? I would like to think no Armed Government Agent would obey an order to use a firearm against unarmed Citizens (and think it most likely), but, then, there’s The Boston Massacre and Kent State…(both cases where armed Soldiers panicked in fear and shot unarmed protestors with some fatal consequences)

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      There is a long list of government using force, violence and arms to silence dissent and protest. It didn’t start with Kent State and it didn’t end there. Nor will it.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        In the recent Armed Protests against the Chinese Virus lock down by ordinary American Citizens there have been no reports of said protestors threatening anyone or discharging firearms, so the presence of firearms among those protesting does not nullify the “peaceably” in the the First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” as this leftist propagandist, Litman asserts in his quoted writing. The use of Armed force by the Government against “peaceably” assembled people has certainly happened and will likely happen again, but Litman’s assertion that the mere presence of firearms among those protesting the Chinese Virus lock down is a precursor to violence by the Citizenry against the Government is spurious. Rather, I think it is a sensible precaution by the Citizens as Government violence against unarmed Citizens is an established fact of History.

  19. avatar 10x25mm says:

    Litman clerked for Abner Mikva, the most virulently anti gun American politician and judge of the XX Century.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      i played doctor with rachel after she let me play with her dad’s moog.
      nice kid back then. probably a mess now.

  20. avatar jwm says:

    The .gov emptied the jails of real criminals to protect them from the beer virus. And then they turn around and put honest Americans in the same jails in spite of the beer virus for doing things like holding church services or opening their business up.

    There has never been a better time for Americans to carry their guns to a protest.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Coincidently my pastor just called me and notified it’s sorta OK to come back to our large IN church. Masked,spread out and NO touching. And the conversation devolved into “guy’s carrying AR15’s” to protest in Michigun. He’s 73,a gun owner and carried a gun for years. Fudd but OK. Unlike Hannity. Did the Michigun po-leece beat the protestors? Gas ’em? No?!? Pretty damn peaceful. With NYC pig’s er cop’s beating folks for being “too close” I’d think having your rifle at the ready is a virtue…optics be damned when gubmint oppression reaches the depth we’re at NOW. Speaking of effed up NY is billing Samaritans Purse for staying more than 14day’s! Out of state folks have to pay income tax to NY(!) even as volunteers😖 Oh and I hope Trump or his minions had nothing to do with any attempted coup in Venezuela!

    1. avatar Dude says:

      They don’t like Samaritans Purse because they’re a christian organization. Simple as that. They don’t like the Salvation Army for the same reason. If you’re a business that gives to one of these christian groups, then they will try to cancel you. Because love, equality, civil rights, blah, blah, blah.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      It fascinates me that the same people who are outraged at how crude Trump is are the ones who think he would be involved with the losers caught in Venezuela. Before he ever did such a thing (reminiscent of JFK and Cuba), he would simply send the Marines, and it would be over in 30 minutes, an hour tops.

  22. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Harry Litman makes the case of the liberty tree being parched.

    1. avatar Hans says:

      Green Boy, parched or chainsawed?

  23. avatar Debbie W. says:

    My question for mr. litman…Since Gun Control is Rooted in racism and genocide, How do you justify your Racist and Nazi Based Gun Control Agenda?

    I doubt if mr. litman is ever on this site and if he was he wouldn’t/couldn’t answer my question. However chances are good there are litman useful idiots on this forum and perhaps they can answer for mr. litman.

    To whom it may concern…My question is clear and requires a direct answer…I did not ask a question about the 3rd Reich so save any and all spins for another day. Thanks for your understanding.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “My question for mr. litman…Since Gun Control is Rooted in racism and genocide, How do you justify your Racist and Nazi Based Gun Control Agenda?”

      Consider: the Dims declared that past racism doesn’t matter; the party is now the champion of minorities; the Dims declared that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist, and believer in eradicating undesirables, but PP is now a champion of women’s rights.

      Given the above, it is unlikely the Dims would have trouble ignoring the basis for gun control laws.

  24. avatar John Galt says:

    Way past time for stripping traitor politicians naked and tarring, feathering and setting them aflame in the street.

    We have an inalienable right to arms. We are also OWED a representative democracy. BY CONTRACT!

    Self dealing communist “representative” traitors Ignoring and selling out their constituents and the country SHOULD be fearful (if not tried, convicted and shot)

  25. avatar John Galt says:

    Representative Republic……sorry

  26. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    Interesting that someone brought up the Boston Massacre.

    Fast forward to the present. Imagine local law enforcement opening fire on these protesters killing several, wounding others, perhaps some younger ones as well. Imagine the optics on that! At a State Capital!

    Watching the media and different groups spin. How many would side with who?

    As I said..interesting.

  27. avatar Eric Nix says:

    These armed protesters are the real patriots.

    1. avatar Hans says:

      Hear, hear. Mr Nix!

  28. avatar Ben Richards says:

    Yeah this moron doesn’t get it or is in on it. Ban Guns from building, OK. Then I guess Ban them from a 1000 feet, OK. Then I guess Ban them from City Limits, OK. Then Zimmerman/Litman I guess Banning from the State! that would make gun owners look Great! But that could never Happen eh Zimmy? The point was to make the politicians uncomfortable, and they are.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The point was to make the politicians uncomfortable, and they are.”

      Big difference between “uncomfortable” (as in cowed and afraid), and “outraged” (as in ramped up anger).

      Swallwell told us what we need to know. Government is not afraid of our guns. Government is prepared to defeat liberty and freedom, by any means necessary. Keep in mind that politicians reflect the mind of their voters and donors. Swallwell and the like are telling you what their supporters will tolerate in regards to we deplorables.

  29. avatar Kyle says:

    kinda funny.

    Government says, Close your business, go home and hunker down. Perhaps its a good idea, perhaps not, but thats the order given. They dont tell our creditors to do so, so my PGE bill continues to come, my water bill, my food bill, my mortgage/rent bill, my Phone bill, etc etc etc.

    We do, so for as long as we can.

    In that time, various governors decide, “hey this is awesome, its the greatest example of “simon says” in history.” They start passing laws around this government idea. Close business, or else. Wear a mask, or else. dont get to close to anyone, or else. Dont go to public events, or have public events….or else.

    The “or else”, at first is just a scolding by some drone operator or a cop, or maybe a family relative.

    Then, ‘they’ decide, lets put teeth to that “suggestion”.

    So now its totally full police state tactics. Arrest and jail those who dont obey.

    ….

    And they think the problem is the guys showing up to the courthouse with semi-auto carbines?

    To my government friends, if you decide you like to run the country using police state tactics, then dont be upset when we treat you like a police state and start showing signs of discontent.

  30. avatar Prndll says:

    This is the very reason the la times is useless. It makes a Harvard education useless. They are all out of touch over educated morons.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Harvard has always been useless. The entire Bar Association is just an illegal guild that requires you to pay membership fees if you want to be in a certain profession.

  31. avatar Ralph says:

    Litman can’t understand the difference between carrying guns at the Capital and firing them at the Capital.

    Hey, Litman, call me when the protesters start killing their oppressors. Until then, they’re simply displaying their discontent, which is allowed in my America if not in yours.

    1. avatar Hans says:

      Ralph, plus 1.. Mr Hitman should go back to sports writing.

      Transgender athletes would appreciate his support or jockstrap.

  32. avatar tired of it says:

    ” Americans formed a society dedicated to the rule of law, representative government and the peaceful resolution of disputes.”

    Awesome, then let’s get some representatives together, write some laws, and resolve some disputes.

    Oh, you’d rather a single elected official gather up a bunch of singularly focused unelected folks and issue edicts that take effect without debate, can be changed on a whim, and are enforced with arrest, jail, or death?

    No. That’s not the democratic republic society we signed up for.

  33. avatar DaveL says:

    Issuing edicts without the consent of the Legislature is not democratic, and having them enforced at gunpoint by police is not non-violent.

    No matter, just wait for the next outrage over police use of force against people of color, and the author will suddenly, magically remember that state violence is still violence.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Issuing edicts without the consent of the Legislature is not democratic, and having them enforced at gunpoint by police is not non-violent.”

      The fact that police are armed means every law and/or regulation is enforced at the point of a gun. Where does that take us?

  34. avatar KENNETH S CARTER says:

    “Liberty’s Teeth”
    http://realitybytesblog.com/libertys-teeth/

    Here’s what I offer in response to the article:
    “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, …”

      And?

      Where is the line? When is enough too much?

  35. avatar Kimber says:

    No sound account of the 2nd Amendment justifies the protesters’ assault on bedrock principles of democratic rule.

    How true this statement is. The comments on this subject are misguided and tragic. Guns mean chaos and violence. They have no place in a modern society. The violence in our world today can be solely attributed to guns and the people who own them. Consider Mexico. The rate of homicide is many times that of the U.S. and the sole reason is the number of guns there. Where do these guns come from? From us. We feed the violence of this country through our archaic ideas on how liberty and freedom should be enforced. To think that a true American would carry a gun to protest in a free country is absurd.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Do you huff paint or just drink it right out of the can?

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “No sound account of the 2nd Amendment justifies the protesters’ assault on bedrock principles of democratic rule.”

      Can you point to somewhere in the founding documents and letters where our form of government prohibits anyone from peaceful assembly (protest) while armed?

      1. avatar Hans says:

        Excellent point, Sam. I think Kimberly is back in class,
        US Constitution 99.

    3. avatar Huntmaster says:

      “Consider Mexico. The rate of homicide is many times that of the U.S. and the sole reason is the number of guns there.”

      What are you talking about? We have way more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens than Mexico. They aren’t even close. And like you said their homicide rate is far higher than our is. You do realize you present the best possible argument against the points you are trying to make?

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Kimber, The Amendment process awaits. Without an Amendment, you may try at your leisure. Have your affairs in order.

  36. avatar Null and Void says:

    Litman: Guns at the Capitol is about America u moron!

    U and ur commie friends is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment for tyrants like u.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

  37. avatar Tired of the bs says:

    I just got home, finally sat down, all I have read is the headline of this article and the first thing that came to mind is Bullshit. It’s patriotism.

  38. avatar balais says:

    LOL @ the idea that we have a ‘civilized democracy”

    We don’t. We have a corporate oligarchy.

    The leftist argument for gun rights is as follows: Any and all efforts to disarm the proletariat must be resisted, and denying the state and its controlling oligarchs a monopoly on force is the primary reasoning behind a armed populace.

    Bourgeois liberals wanting disarmament are posers and useful idiots for oligarchs.

  39. avatar Ben says:

    Guns and numbers are the only things making the elite politicians enslaving us take us seriously. The only thing they fear.

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Yup, these days all cops care about is making it home after every shift. If you put any doubt in their mind that that may not happen (and if your side has numbers), they won’t push it.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Guns and numbers are the only things making the elite politicians enslaving us take us seriously. The only thing they fear.”

      Yet, “they” continue dragging this nation down, day after day, year after year.

      “They” do not fear anything. The whole FBI corruption case proves that.

  40. avatar Hans says:

    avatar Sam I Am says:
    May 7, 2020 at 18:26

    “Am I Sam, there are simply too many of us, if that
    ever crossed your mind.”

    Too many of whom for what outcome?

    It is a simple equation. If you do not understand it
    I can not helf you.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “It is a simple equation. If you do not understand it
      I can not helf you.”

      Somehow, I feel like I eluded nonsense, here.

  41. avatar Hans says:

    Hear is one of Mr Harry Hitman article from the “Ice” Atlantic.

    “Michael Flynn Is Worse Than a Liar”

    Other than being a part time sports writer, he is simply a Trump
    hating statist.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Pray tell, what is your native language?

  42. avatar Hans says:

    Sam I Am said: A hair salon in Dallas? Armed patriots were “protecting” the salon owner (from whom or what is unclear). The armed patriots quietly surrendered, and were jailed.

    Do you have any cites??

      1. avatar Hans says:

        Sam is funny “Yes, but first a word from our sponsors….”
        but the rest is spam.

        It would have been better to have said, eye made an
        error but you just doubled down.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The rest” (the links) point to the episode where the “protectors” just stood around with their guns accomplishing nothing. And to the episode where the “protectors” went to jail. The point of the entire thing is to demonstrate that all these armed patriots are not proving to be useful, and are hurting the idea that armed patriots will stop government from overreach. What is the purpose of showing up armed? Wandering around purposely? The idea that the message is “Next time” makes us look foolish.

          If you consider links to stories showing the difference between bloviating and reality to be “Spam”, fine. We report, you decide.

  43. avatar Hans says:

    avatar strych9 says:
    May 7, 2020 at 10:49

    Call you Shirley? Never, Ms. Temple, never.
    Reply
    avatar jwm says:
    May 7, 2020 at 13:26

    She was Mrs Black. But i guess it would be racist to address her that way.
    avatar Sam I Am says:
    May 7, 2020 at 15:03

    “She was Mrs Black. But i guess it would be racist to address her that way.”

    Would “Ms. Person of Color” work?
    avatar strych9 says:
    May 7, 2020 at 22:36

    Shirley Temple is a non-alcoholic cocktail.

    My comment is meant to be a subtle jab and a joke. A non-sexual double entendre.

    THANKS for the cent of humor in these in these tyranny times!

  44. avatar adverse6 says:

    Give me freedom, or give me cake……..Stupid people with firearms do not freedom make.

  45. avatar Boogaloo Williams says:

    So when do we start holding these corrupt pieces of scum to their oaths? How many times are we going to draw a line and watch it be crossed? It’s not just the second amendment anymore. The first amendment is dead with these virus lockdowns, the fourth died with the passage of the “Patriot” Act and is being further nullified via red flag laws, the second died with the NFA back in 1934. Do we have to be living in an Orwellian dystopia before we say “ok now it’s time to do something” ? They’ve already proven all our rights are nothing more than privileges they can revoke at their whim. 10 years ago I swore an oath to the United States Constitution. Today that document is nearly worthless because we the people have allowed the scum in Washington to make it so. The tree is thirsty ladies and gentlemen.

  46. avatar Bryan Badger says:

    So when the infringing government we currently have crushes more and more of our GOD GIVEN rights away, we do what? Lay down our weapons and take it? Be peaceful little blades of grass in a hurricane? No. We ARE the hurricane. We are powerful, numerous, and WE ARE THE PEOPLE. The government must bend to OUR will. Our representatives have made it clear they’re more interested in their political career than they are actually representing us. They stand for themselves, not the people and they need to know WE WILL NOT COMPLY

    1. avatar Boogaloo Williams says:

      Sic Semper Tyrannis!

  47. avatar Boogaloo Williams says:

    Kent State is why every political demonstration should be armed to the teeth.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email