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

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

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

Too many of whom for what outcome?

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.

“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?

War.

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

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

Would “Ms. Person of Color” work?

Shirley Temple is a non-alcoholic cocktail.

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

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

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.

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.

“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.

Don’t knock it til you try it.

“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.”

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

“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.

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.

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.

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

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

By having public same sex sex. I mean marriage.

“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.

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.

tsb, why are you crapping on peoples’ rights.

Just go to a safe place and SIP.

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.

“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?

“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.

“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.

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.

“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.”

An ounce of deterrence is worth a pound of lead.

“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?

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

“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.

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…

“…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.

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.

“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.

Good news

“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 !!

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.

“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

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

“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.

“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.