Many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms everywhere, including at public protests. Many Americans also believe that the First Amendment protects their right to speak freely and participate in political protest. What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives.
This is not hyperbole. Since January 2020, millions of Americans have assembled in public places to protest police brutality, systemic racism, and coronavirus protocols, among other things. A significant number of those protesters were confronted by counterprotesters visibly bearing firearms. In some of these cases, violence erupted. According to a new study by Everytown for Gun Safety and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), one in six armed protests that took place from January 2020 through June 2021 turned violent or destructive, and one in 62 turned deadly. …
Whatever the motives of firearms carriers might be, the clear social perception of would-be participants is that armed protests are unsafe. That finding is crucial to understanding the potentially devastating effect that bringing guns to protests can have on the exercise of First Amendment rights.
— Diana Palmer and Timothy Zick in The Second Amendment Has Become a Threat to the First at The Atlantic.
Because civil rights protesters in the 60s and the war protesters (especially after Kent State) didn’t fear for their lives when the government arrived with armed police and soldiers. Everyone knows that. If they had been fearful, they wouldn’t have protested.
I almost stopped reading as soon as I saw the “sources” for the data. ‘nuff said.
In time you’ll hear and see every concocted effort there is to get at The Second Amendment including such shenanigans as The 2A VS The 1A. Sneaky Gun Control zealots know the more they can tangle things up the more they can convince a confused milquetoast public to surrender.
You’ve seen the response to your article Diana Palmer and Timothy Zick. That said it is only fitting for you two newspaper wordsmiths to address each of the following in wordsmith detail. Certainly you two agree The First Amendment is a two way street?
1) The Second Amendment is one thing.
2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.
3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.
“nazi based Thing”
boolshevik. boolshevik thing.
He used a study by Everytown.. the Nazi organization of the 2nd amendment.. GTFOH
A M E N !!!
I would remind the author of this article that the majority of those shot at, and sometimes killed, have been conservatives and members of the 2A community.
Oh my so because I’m going to the range today they can’t talk!?!
Awesome
Yeah, what a load of complete crap. All my family and most of my friends and associates know full well that I have carrying every waking moment for more than a decade, because I have made no secret of it. And trust me, it has not slowed down the amount of guff thrown my way one bit.
My comments are probably going to be unpopular, but I’m compelled to make them anyway. I have to agree with Boch, sort of. I believe that when supposedly peaceful protesters bring openly carried firearms to a protest/demonstration it sends a threatening message to those on the other side and to neutral observers who haven’t decided where they stand on the issue. I also believe that the sight of those armed people can provoke a violent encounter. The side with the guns is invariably portrayed unfavorably by the media and reinforces a negative image of gun owners. I invite comments but will not respond to personal attacks or insults.
Except that the above article is simply an excerpt from another article for our information, not Boch’s own words.
Aside from that, and in response to your own point, the feeling of being threatened is subjective. Whenever I’m around someone who has a visible but holstered/slung gun, I never feel threatened.
“…the sight of those armed people can provoke a violent encounter.”
I cannot be responsible for the decisions and actions of others around me. If I conduct myself in a peaceable manner while exercising my right, then I am within my boundaries of social responsibility. Anyone who chooses to threaten me and doesn’t allow me to peaceably de-escalate (or possibly leave the area altogether) may find that any ensuing violence will be their own fault. Think Kyle Rittenhouse and those who violently attacked him.
Playing Devil’s Advocate here – there is some truth here and it was much worse during the civil rights demonstrations in the 50s and 60s. While Blacks marched into the firehoses and dogs, the sight of a wall of guns carried by hateful men in and out of uniform must have invoked a lot of terror.
Just like any demonstration, all it takes is one person to do something over the top and then mob rule comes to play.
The sight of men with guns can very well encourage someone to do something stupid to trigger some violence – and then public perception of the 2nd amendment gets a black eye.
While I am not suggesting that you “back down”, I am suggesting that unless you have another choice, stay away.
Uh huh. Whatever, ‘man’. Please remind us all why you failed to answer President Trump’s urgent call to action on 1/6.
How did you answer the call?
The ‘gun expert’, JWM, is a frightened little boy who has done NOTHING for civil rights.
He cowers in his room like a scared dog… 😉
Those protesting(left) can bring guns too!!
John Boch never said he agreed with the sentiments written by The Atlantic article’s authors, and I’m quite sure he does not.
In large part, those who are intimidated by others carrying firearms instilled their fears on themselves. I am not, and decline to be held, responsible for the self-induced derangement of others.
OldProf49 If you are afraid of a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm, I suggest you put your big boy pants on. Many of the Leftist-Socialist “counter protesters” (read ANTIFA) have attacked Conservative protesters with guns, knives, clubs etc. Where have you been? If seeing these armed protesters “sparks” violence, it is because those who are being violent were going to be violent to begin with. If you can’t see that, then you are blind to the real aims of the Leftist-Socialist stormtroopers.
Um, is it possible that the “peaceful protesters” who are intent on destroying property, beating up any opposition, burning businesses, looting, killing cops, etc. don’t like the idea that someone with a gun might not agree with their “peaceful methods”? Therefore, armed “counter-protesters” are interfering with their right to “free speech”? If a “peaceful protester” is intent on burning my business, my sole means of support, harming or killing me in the process, I would like to exercise my right to free speech in the form of loud popping noises.
And you should then “be there”, ready to live in your business for a few days and also be able to support other like minded business owners and any friends you got to help.
I would hope that no one in your group would have to run the gauntlet, alone, carrying a MSR. That made Kyle a target, forcing him to protect himself.
Reading comprehension is fundamental…
Supposedly peaceful? Really? Thanks for showing your true colors.
Prof, because you choose to believe it does not make it true. If I were at a protest and noticed someone was armed, it certainly would not deter me from speaking my mind, because I would be armed as well. Are you assuming that, whatever the subject of the demonstration/protest, only one side would be armed? And you personally would know which side that was? Because that would be a really stupid assumption and one I would never make. I am armed, but I would never assume that the guy next to me is not.
I have never felt threatened by someone open carrying, my only thoughts have been, what are you carrying and how does it handle?
Ha ha! That’s exactly my first thought, too! “I wonder what kind of gun they are carrying? I wonder if it might be better than what I’m carrying?”
Though I’m not an advocate for open carry all the time. I think concealed carry is more sensible, but I certainly don’t object to those that think differently than I do.
Hey, Prof, thanks for your comment. You are right that for some, firearms are threatening. Then again, so is Dave Chapelle. As others have noted, one can’t control what other people feel, and I suspect the whole “safety” canard is just a way to shut one side down.
I have not seen firearms displayed in a protest that is not 2A related. No guns at Jan. 6 or at all these school board “domestic terrorist” incidents. So this author is conflating gun rights demonstrations with other 1A expressions to scare readers. One of the largest public displays of guns happens every year on MLK Day in Richmond, VA. People carry FALs, Tavors, AKs, ARs, and even .50 BMGs. Funny, no one ever gets hurt.
Oh wait, I was wrong. There are indeed non-2A protests with arms displayed for the sole purpose of intimidation. Somehow I don’t think this author wants to shut down the Antifa agitations in Portland and Minneapolis, though.
Cool. Now do Antifa carrying skateboards, bear spray, batons and shields. I’ll wait.
If you think law-abiding gun owners carrying (NOT ‘brandishing’) is a problem, can I suggest that you may, perhaps, have not been paying attention??
Oh, and, as others in this thread have implied – I have absolutely NO control over your subjective reaction to anything I do. Nor would I want to. As others have mentioned, I ASSUME everyone around me is armed – it’s like Pascal’s Wager; my downside for being wrong is that I carried around my gun, and didn’t need it (which I do, every day, anyway). My downside for being right is that I have to deal with 5-0 if I reasonably feel that I am in danger of death or serious injury.
And why is my carrying (concealed) ANY greater threat to anyone around me than is a shield-toting Andy Tifa, who is also sporting a baton, bear spray, and/or a skateboard?? I’ve been carrying guns for over 40 years. Never shot anyone, and I hope I never have to. That someone else has a SUBJECTIVE fear of my gun? That sounds like a ‘them’ problem, to me.
“That someone else has a SUBJECTIVE fear of my gun?”
dude. it’s not subjective at all, it’s highly objective. they know that you’ll shoot them if they ever really try to do what they want to do to you – everyone always does – so they want you disarmed. until you’re disarmed, they’re not free to be what they want to be. you oppressor you.
“That someone else has a SUBJECTIVE fear of my gun?”
dude. it’s not subjective at all, it’s highly objective. they know that you’ll shooot them if they ever really try to do what they want to do to you – everyone always does – so they want you disarmed. until you’re disarmed, they’re not free to be what they want to be. you oppressor you.
Rant7,
Strangely, I’ve owned firearms for over 60 years, and carried daily for over 40 – and I’ve never fired one of my guns at another human. And it ain’t like, in that 60 years, people haven’t tried to ‘do things’ to me. A combination of situational awareness, and making sure my behavior and body posture don’t signal “victim” to street predators has been sufficient. My firearm is the last resort – but it increases my confidence, which increases my lack of a victim mentality. Try it, sometime – it’s worked for me for 60 years.
A large group of angry, protesting people is inherently a threat of violence. The threat is implicit. “If our demands aren’t met, we will riot.”
Adding guns (which both the left and right are doing/have done/will continue to do) changes nothing except upping the ante as far as Government forces are concerned. “If our demands are not heeded, the forces of Government themselves may have to pay the price.”
Since our Government has largely abandoned pretense of legitimacy, it is not surprising that they and their allies in the MSM are doing their best to disarm America.
https://youtu.be/bFrKTXlcNHA
Demoralization complete. We are entering the destabilization phase. I hope everyone reading this is prepared.
The minutemen on the green in Concord didn’t carry banners or signs. They bore modern military rifles.
Let him who has no AR sell his smartphone to buy one.
If you haven’t decided where you stand on the issue,and you’re still “on the fence”…. just remember, the Devil owns the fence.
FWIW without the 2nd Amendment/RTKBA, there would be no 1st Amendment free speech…we would all have been squelched long before now. And it’s exactly what they’re trying to do now…relieve us of our 2nd A so they can then relieve us of our right to free speech. Make no mistake…that IS what the left is trying to do.
“My comments are probably going to be unpopular…”
Well you nailed that one, lol!
Honestly I get this argument but I find it wanting.
Firstly, it can be applied to anything, and legitimately so. One’s free speech might be chilled by the presence of women driving pickup trucks or people with tattoos. A person might be afraid of just about anything for valid or pathological reasons. That doesn’t mean they get to tread on the right of others as a method to assuage their own fears.
That whole “My rights stop at the tip of your nose”, even in its most extreme interpretations, isn’t a valid reason to cut off people’s hands because maybe someone might, possibly throw a punch at some point.
Secondly, this line of thinking is quite obviously abusable because the argument quite obviously goes both ways when one has what they perceive to be an unpopular opinion and is arguing a counterpoint advocated by a group that’s known to show up in numbers. Quite obviously we’ve seen this behavior numerous times in the past number of years.
And you know the guns thing is a canard since Lefties who give speeches have… armed security.
And it’s not hard to figure out why. Allow a short hypothetical.
There’s a public debate to be had about a controversial topic we’ll call Topic X. For simplicity’s sake there are two positions on this, Yea or Nea. No nuance, just Yea or Nay.
If you’re to argue the Yea position publicly it’s quite easy for the other side to intimidate you, and in fact propaganda can be deployed to assist them. If they’re known brawlers, like we’ve seen in recent years, you might be apprehensive and rightly so. You’re taking a position that they may get physical over.
But what if they also outnumber you? Then why bother to even attempt debate? Even assuming you would win the debate, you’d never be allowed to win it before they got violent and if they do they have all the advantages.
But what if you thought your people were in the majority? Well, push-polling could be deployed or a Nay-friendly media figure could amplify a story that’s untrue about the relative popularity of your opinion. Or the Nays could employ an astroturfing campaign against you.
All three have demonstrably been done in the United States, and not long ago either so these are not theoreticals.
That lends enormous advantage to the other side if they’re willing to be unscrupulous, which they’ve demonstrated that they are. They use improvised and hidden weapons. Concrete milkshakes for instance.
You cannot “support civil rights” and also support pre-crime or insinuations of pre-crime. Legal actions may, in fact, be intimidating. That doesn’t make them illegal and so long as the actions are legal the reaction they provoke isn’t really any of your concern. Or are we not going to allow muscular men over 6’2″ into public discussion either?
That said, optics is a thing. The 2A, and “the right” generally is terrible about this. They always have been and, probably, always will be. They’re simply not going to put in the effort to get good at it because it cuts against their own way of thinking. Like Canadians, they’re “too fuckin’ nice” on this front.
Sad that The Atlantic has gone from espousing Christian values, family cohesiveness and individual rights at it’s founding in 1857 to shilling for the Progressive Socialism of today. Emerson and Longfellow (two of it’s founders) would be disappointed.
Reminds me of the New York Slimes…how many instances of plagiarism and fraud, to include fraudulently obtained Pulitizers, has the Grey Lady “newspaper of record” been caught at? It, too, has become a shill for Progressive Socialism…completely perverting it’s role to report news fairly and impartially with minimal bias.
And what does the author think of forcing demonstrators on the conservative side, into miniscule sidelined “free speech zones?”
Or is that suppression okay because of what’s being suppressed?
Seems to be no mention of the piles of bricks and stashes of frozen water bottles that the lunatic left are fond of. There is NO use for them other than violence, destruction, and mayhem. The gun on my waist is an inert object.
“…the Second Amendment has become…a threat to the First Amendment.”
Cool story. Now do the DOJ.
One more comment, FWIW. I decided to download the DefCad files just to give them the virtual finger. Turns out I had to purchase a $60 annual membership to download the zip files. Not worth it, especially since I don’t yet have the printer. Maybe later.
Look up The Gatalog.
So in addition to being a seditious traitor, you’re also cheap. I bet you’re a real devil with the ladies lol.
“I bet you’re a real devil with the ladies lol.”
Says the one who’s never had a woman he didn’t have to pay for… 😉 😉 😉
Agreed with the author; protests would be much more fun if the police didn’t bring their guns.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Seems you think it’s open season on Conservatives?
I’m cool with that – we shoot back.
Ditto! And I hit what I am at.
First and foremost… our rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights are specific to the prohibition of the government’s (and its agents, departments, appointed and elected officials, et al) actions, not an unelected/unappointed civilian individual, against the people.
So armed Americans stifles ANTIFA and BLM from conducting their “mostly peaceful” activities?
Good to know.
So the Atlantic uses its free speech to endanger second amendment rights.
‘Whatever the motives of firearms carriers might be…’ This is what you get when you call looting and burning a pharmacy to the ground ‘speech’. The 2nd Amendment is now stifling ‘speech’.
Bet the people in Hong Kong (among many other places Communists rule) who were dragged off in the middle of the night would disagree with you. If they could talk.
It’s also funny The Atlantic talks about free speech, considering they only want you to have speech that is like theirs.
Maybe people wouldn’t feel compelled to be armed at protests if the protests were prevented from being violent and that those involved were actually prosecuted in a way that was even handed.
Speaking just for myself, my “concern level” would depend on a host of factors – the person’s demeanor, whether he/she seems like they’re looking for trouble, etc. In other words, plain old situational awareness. A pistol on the hip isn’t cause for concern in and of itself to me.
That said – and again speaking just for myself – I *do* feel uneasy when I see people show up to protests carrying their rifles at the low-ready position. To me, that’s an aggressive stance. If someone had their sidearm out of its holster and at low-ready at a protest (or most anywhere else but in a potential DGU situation), no one would think that’s a good way to exercise their 2A rights.
An OPENLY armed society is a MUCH MORE polite society. And there are many people who hate the idea of being polite. They like offending others.
The open carry of guns in Texas, did not end in shoot outs. So why are so many in the “gun community” afraid? Stay home if you are afraid of people who open carry guns.
From 2016
“Dean Weingarten Celebrates Texas Open Carry’s Quiet Success”
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/dean-weingarten-celebrates-texas-open-carrys-quiet-success/
“Free speech” (the 1st Amendment) threatens my right to free speech.
Those who want to silence me show up in mobs demanding I not be allowed to speak against the mob. Enforcement comes in the form of cement milk shakes, chains, vandalism, looting, burning, beat downs, social media bullying.
Being silenced is being violenced.
Silence through violence. Who’d have suspected it?
“Silence through violence. Who’d have suspected it?”
Yep. Color me surprised.
What is important is to discern the real objective behind the Atlantic article — That is to disarm the American people so that the elite can impose their New World Order through violence and police ordered mandates by rigged elections. The authors could care nothing less for free speech — the goal is to make the flyover defenseless and the elite can bring about their communist regime.
Those of use who want to get along with eachother will do just fine. The open carry of long guns is part of the 2A. And it brings us together.
bug(smile)
From July 2020
“Let Your State Legislators Know Gun Owners Aren’t Just a Bunch of Old White Guys”
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/let-your-state-legislators-know-gun-owners-arent-just-a-bunch-of-old-white-guys/
A really big(smile)
“Many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms everywhere, including at public protests. Many Americans also believe that the First Amendment protects their right to speak freely and participate in political protest. What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives.”
false
1. Its true that many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms everywhere. It is not true that Many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms at protests.
fact: less then 2% of the “many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms” have ever attended a protest of any type.
fact: non-gun “peaceful” protestors who use there first amendment rights gathered into a crowd to protest, overall, perform more hamful acts to others than any one with a gun ever has in a protest. Overall in the last three years for all protests, less than 1% of all the harm done was by someone with a gun where over 80% of the harm done was by the so called “peaceful protestors”.
2. “What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives.”
false
fact: the fact that protestors gather in protest to use their first amendment rights shows they do not see the Second Amendment as a threat or fear to their lives in relation to them exercising their first amendment rights
3. “This is not hyperbole. Since January 2020, millions of Americans have assembled in public places to protest police brutality, systemic racism, and coronavirus protocols, among other things. A significant number of those protesters were confronted by counterprotesters visibly bearing firearms. In some of these cases, violence erupted. According to a new study by Everytown for Gun Safety and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), one in six armed protests that took place from January 2020 through June 2021 turned violent or destructive, and one in 62 turned deadly.”{
overall false , just false false false overall.
fact: “one in six armed protests that took place from January 2020 through June 2021 turned violent or destructive, and one in 62 turned deadly.” because “peaceful” protestors who were not counter-protestors were responsible for over 80% of the harm.
fact: counter-protestors who show up at a pro gun gun rally to counter-protest guns do not show up with the intent of “peaceful protest”, they show up to counter protest to agitate what was a peaceful pro gun gun rally and in every case the counter-protestiors have started trouble where there was none before. For cripes sake, if you don’t like guns and fear them so much why do you got to counter-protest at a pro gun rally when there are plenty of opportunities for you to show protest and exercise your first amendment rights in non-gun environments like those put on by EveryTown? You are not being heroic you are letting you emotional investment do the thinking for you, are you stupid?
4. My second amendment rights have the same validity as your first amendment rights. You do not get to say “my rights are more important than your rights” and that’s what you really want to happen.
fact: More “law abiding” civilian people, not legal gun owners, without guns have harmed or injured or killed more people in the last 3 years, and some directly and indirectly by use of free speech, than legal civilian gun owners have in the exercise of their second amendment right in all uses of guns in the last 100 years. All who want to exercise your first amendment rights who would do so in a protest and are not gun owners or are anti-gun, you are literally, overall, safer with legal civilian gun owners than you are with your own first amendment right exercising protest people who think the second amendment threatens their first amendment. Irony is a bitch sometimes.
Atlantic, Diana Palmer and Timothy Zick, the second amendment is not threatening first amendment rights. first amendment rights are being threatened by use of the first amendment rights to create false biased narratives about how the second amendment threatens the first amendment.
Heck, the “law abiding” civilian people in the tobacco industry alone, without guns and by use of free speech (advertising), kills several million world wide every year and injures over 400,000 in the U.S. alone, and the tobacco industry admits they do it. That’s just one industry that harms or injures or kills people by use of first amendment.
But you anti-gun idiots look at the most law abiding and lest harmful people namely gun owners exercising their second amendment rights and claim the second amendment is threatening the first amendment when first amendment use by a single industry alone is killing or harming or injuring over 1,000 people every 24 hours in the US alone and millions world wide every 24 hours.
Tell you what, why don’t you clean up your own first amendment hypocrisy.
re: #1) Protests would be part of “everywhere”, as stated this sentence makes no sense. Most Americans fervently believe the Second Amendment guarantees their right to bear arms everywhere, including the grocery store, the movie theater, and any protests they might attend.
It is not true that many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms at protests.
This in the Atlantic was another sly jab at trying to define gun owners as crazed overbearing threatening fanatics as opposed to ‘those poor little people who just want to exercise their first amendment rights at a protest’.
Notice the use of “fervently” when it comes to the second amendment belief but for the first amendment those believers in free speech are not “fervent”.
what many Americans believe is that under the Second Amendment there should be no limits on the right to bear arms.
The right its self does not protect the ability to have your firearm everywhere. What it protects is the right to have a firearm and to be free from government limitations on having your firearm everywhere. Remember, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was intended to place limits on government not us.
I’m sorry, can you please publish the poll that demonstrates the truth of that assertion that most gun owners believe that? Because most gun owners I know believe that their right to bear arms everywhere (note specific exception, below) IS protected by the 2A. I agree that, if the owner of a private business chooses to ban carry (and posts that at the entrance to their business), that is their right. Just as it is the right of any friend/acquaintance to bar carry in their home. A distinction relevant to the whole ‘government action vs. private property’ thing, which gun control idjits (and, apparently, some people who CLAIM to be 2A supporters) NEVER seem to understand. And I can choose to enter their business or home, or not. The government has no power to do that, nor should it.
I make it a practice to carry daily. While I acknowledge the right of a PRIVATE property owner (business or individual) to exclude guns on their PRIVATE property, if the government chooses to tell me that I cannot carry a gun ANYWHERE in public or on public property? I also carry something that the government is free to s***.
You misread, its not a jab at the second so don’t get offended. There is not enough space here in the comments section to go through every little “what if” thing.
The purpose of the bill of rights was to place limits on government to protect rights we already had. Its not to grant a right we already had, it was to keep government from infringing on those. The federalist papers clearly outline this purpose.
Every time you claim the right of the second amendment what you are actually calming is the freedom from government limitations on a right you already had and still have now, and those rights foundations are in the “natural rights” spoken of in the founders documents.
If you say you have the right to carry your firearm at a protest or any other specific place you are categorizing the right to a specific place and the place just changes. That’s the gun-control view, that the second amendment can be limited based upon place or can be categorized thus limitations are permitted.
So what many second amendment Americans actually “fervently” believe is the right to have a firearm and to be free from government limitations on having your firearm everywhere. They just say it different ways. If that everywhere happens to be a protest, ok then, but the right does not grant that you can be at a protest with your fire arm only that you having it there is not subject to government limitation – in other words, its your choice and not the governments choice.
BRAVO! You nailed it.
The Morons of the Far Right are always there own worst enemies. Showing up at voting places armed to intimidate people only hurts the gun owner image as a bunch of Nazi thugs who believe in a one party state. Sadly a lot of them are just that. Herr Drumpf’s beer haul putsch on Jan 6th certainly proved that including a mad Right Wing Bomber.
Bringing guns to protests only leads to hot heads using the guns on people trying to exercise their 1st Amendment rights so in cases like that YES it does prevent people from exercising their free speech rights. Again promoting the image of gun owners as Right Wing Nazi’s that are doing exactly what Hitler’s SS did when he rose to power.
And remember Carl Rittenhouse the young punk wannabee Nazi Storm Trooper. A good example of hot heads armed to the teeth at a protest gunning down unarmed people.
If Storm Trooper Rittenhouse had not been armed no one would have died that night and that is a fact the Far Right cannot lie their way out of.
blah blah blah…something something, blah blah blah
I’ll just sum up the response in one thing: If Rittenhouse had not been armed that night he probably would have died.
Booger Brain he took an assault rifle to intimidate people. He thought he was hot shit but did not know what to do when they did not take his intimidation and they knew he had no authority over them. He instigated the confrontation from the get go.
Dacian said,
“Of course no documentation only a wild claim”
And
“Again cite documentations. They do not , I wonder why?”
Why? Well stop wondering. It is because your reading comprehension is at a second (maybe first) degree level.
Really sorry you failed basic reading and don’t understand how to read the full report that includes ….. 134 footnotes!
But why would you? As a mentally unbalanced leftist (ask me Miner49er all about it) you can simply scream and attempt to project your racism upon others. Again, point of fact, you are the racist.
Here is the page on their website you either ignored, or because of your current reading comprehension level could not locate.
https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf
It has 134 endnotes you can click at (but will be unlikely to understand), like this one; Joel Gherke, “Report: U.S. Spent $1.87 Billion to Incarcerate Illegal-Immigrant Criminals in 2014,”
National Review, July 28, 2015
Happy reading….. your “tear it apart” skills is nonexistent… and seek some professional help ASAP!
Dacian said,
“Of course no documentation only a wild claim”
And,
“Again cite documentations. They do not , I wonder why?”
Why? Well stop wondering. It is because your reading comprehension is at a second (maybe first) degree level.
Really sorry you failed basic reading and don’t understand how to read the full report that includes ….. 134 footnotes!
But why would you? As a mentally unbalanced leftist (ask me Miner49er all about it) you can simply scream and attempt to project your racism upon others. Again, point of fact, you are the racist.
Here is the page on their website you either ignored, or because of your current reading comprehension level could not locate.
https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf
It has 134 endnotes you can click at (but will be unlikely to understand), like this one; Joel Gherke, “Report: U.S. Spent $1.87 Billion to Incarcerate Illegal-Immigrant Criminals in 2014,”
National Review, July 28, 2015
Happy reading….. your “tear it apart” skills is nonexistent… and seek some professional help ASAP!
Once again I’ll just sum up the response in one thing: If Rittenhouse had not been armed that night he probably would have died.
Do you not understand that?
Male bovine fecal matter.
Just for clarification I didn’t read the post. I just saw the icon and name and knew it was fertilizer.
“And remember Carl Rittenhouse the young punk wannabee Nazi Storm Trooper. A good example of hot heads armed to the teeth at a protest gunning down unarmed people.
If Storm Trooper Rittenhouse had not been armed no one would have died that night and that is a fact the Far Right cannot lie their way out of.”
Well I would call this Defamation. I will be sending this over to Kyle’s lawyers. Hopefully they can track you down and file a civil suit against you. Personally, I’m tired of your drivel, perhaps a monetary judgement will teach you a lesson.
I would also caution the moderators that hosting and promoting defamation might not be in their best interests either???
it does not legally qualify as defamation, just opinion. Just saying (writing) it does not mean it harmed Rittenhouse specifically which is a key thing to be able to show in a defamation case.
note: because Rittenhouse right now is a public figure so you can basically say anything you want about him and its not defamation, basically, unless he sufferers a tangible loss or harm directly to him personally
Mauser6863 “Stormtrooper?” I don’t think so. It seems that Kyle was firing in self DEFENSE. That is one of the cornerstones of American law. The people who were shot was chasing him with clubs and knives if I recall correctly. These Leftist-Socialists were getting their just and due.
dacian the dim,
Apparently your frequently-touted “education” did not include simple English grammar. “[T]here” should have been “their”; “beer haul putsch” – perhaps you meant “beer HALL putsch”?; “Herr Drumpf’s beer haul putsch on Jan 6th certainly proved that including a mad Right Wing Bomber.” – including a “mad Right Wing Bomber” in WHAT, exactly, and what did it “prove”??; and “hot heads” should have been “hotheads”; and “A good example of hot heads armed to the teeth at a protest gunning down unarmed people.” – well, I already schooled you on “hotheads”, but anyone with a degree of cognition is aware that TWO of the three people shot by Kyle Rittenhouse (NOT “Carl”, you ignorant buffoon) were IN FACT armed at the time of the shooting. “If Storm Trooper Rittenhouse had not been armed no one would have died that night and that is a fact the Far Right cannot lie their way out of.” Oh, yes, SOMEONE would have died that DAY (it wasn’t night, you ignorant twit) – Kyle Rittenhouse.
Are you capable of opening your mouth without s*** falling out in metric tonnes????? Perhaps your oft-touted education is either fictitious, or perhaps an “education” that didn’t actually include ‘educating’ you about anything other than lying, Leftist propaganda?? I’ve already called you out about this several times, dacian the dim – what is the nature of this alleged “education” you claim to possess??? Because, to an outside observer evaluating your drivel, you come across as an ignorant, uneducated, uninformed, illiterate, ungrammatical, closed-minded clown.
Work on it – perhaps someday you will achieve high-functioning moron status.
dacian the dim,
In my ongoing demonstration of my mental, moral, and personal superiority to your idiot self, I am hereby issuing my OWN public correction – you are correct in ONE tiny detail – his shootings occurred at night. My reference to “day” was from my recollection of the videos of his EARLIER confrontations with violent Andy Tifas, which occurred during the day. But the shooting did, indeed, occur after dark – nat that that changes a blinking thing about the incident. But, it does prove that, on those RARE occasions when I make a factual error, I try to correct it as promptly as possible – as opposed to doubling down on a mistake (or, in your case, a lie), as is your usual practice.
Dacian,
Again, you are so full of sh*t, you are like Christmas Turkey. You and your ANTIFA thugs bring, clubs, knives, chemical weapons (tear gas to you) to your so called “peaceful demonstrations.
Rittenhouse was defending himself against a mob that was armed with clubs and knives. I’ve already pointed out to your socialist posterior that you Socialists are the real Nazis. Remember your buddy Giovani Gentile? Or have you forgotten already?
The Morons of the Far Left are always there own worst enemies.
FIFY.
The use of the second amendment forces people into protesting passionately, but not violently. And many people don’t like that. Antifa is the military wing of the Democrat Party. Just like the KKK was their military wing 100 years ago. The Atlantic is just trying to guilt the “right winger squishes” into giving up their guns.
They don’t like anti-abortion protesters. They don’t like any form of conservative protest. But they like it when a military recruiting office entrance is blocked. And they like it when that recruiting office is burned to the ground by Left wing protesters. Or when they burn a police station to the ground.
Translation: Masculine warfare ( guns, ETC.. ) > Feminine warfare (GSRRM) that’s why they are complaining about it. They know that if we decide to get PO ed its over for them.
Dafook is GSRRM? Does this post mean something?
it means “I’m SO confused “, now signified by an “X” placed between the Male and Female choice boxes on a U.S. passport as of this week.
It refers to the difference between men and women in terms of communication strategy. Men tend to be more confrontational, aka “disagreeable”. Women tend not to be as direct. There’s whole books on the psychology and and evolutionary biology of this.
GSRRM: Gossiping, Shaming, Rallying, Ridicule and Moralizing.
There are some longer acronyms too that add things like “Undermining”.
It became a bit of a “thing” to talk about in response to aggressive feminism arguing styles and it’s also morphed into an acronym applied to various Leftists because they’ve adopted a similar strategy in some cases, such as aggressive “Cancel Culture”.
Obviously the 1st amendment has presented itself as a threat to the 2nd.
Rocks and glass house come to mind here……
Anything that the Atlantic writes or says should have a disclaimer, “Approved by the Democrat/Republican Wall Street War Party, sending your kids to dies in wars, so we can all profit”
These guys are criminals and the supporters of corporate criminals. Perhaps one day they will be on the receiving end of a “Mostly Peaceful Protest”, LOL
The Atlantic is the epitome of a low-energy soy boy beta cuck publication.
Interesting timing of the article: the day before the Rittenhouse trial is to begin. Inescapable that it is clearly aimed at that trial, priming public opinion against the kid. The article essentially argues that the presence of armed persons triggers violent confrontation, i.e., Kyle “caused” the protesters to attack him.
What this argument leaves out, however, is that violence is triggered only because the protesters (armed with shields, rocks, sticks, bats, stones, ice bombs, fireworks, etc etc.) are trying to intimidate the people who are armed in an attempt to either instigate an incident or force them to leave so that the rioting can continue. But unlike the police in places like Portland and Seattle*, the counter protesters do not typically back down.
*I am not suggesting that the officers present were cowardly. Instead, they were ordered to stand down by their cowardly superiors (for political reasons of course).
The victim’s short skirt was determined to be directly responsible for causing her rape. … try running that headline, Atlantic.
GOOD ARTICLE , THATS WHY ,DEFEND AND PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION , ALL OF IT !!
NOT JUST WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF IT .
STILL CAUTION WHAT YA SAY N HOW YA SAY IT ..
CAUTION USING YOUR 2A RIGHTS , REM: INSURANCE FOR WEAPON OWNERSHIP ,
AND YOU DON’T HAV A KISS tRUMP , WHAT EVER , JAN 06 , DISGRACEFUL , AS WAS ORANGE FACE LEADERSHIP , LOSER .. NOT BECAUSE HE LOST ELECTION , BUT WAY HE TOOK IT , CRY BABY , EGGHEAD . SUMMARY PROTECT ALL OF IT OUR CONSTITUTION !!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA
This is not hyperbole.
Nope, just rank hypocrisy.
The same folks don’t much mind when someone engages says the wrong speech and gets the shit kicked out of them 5 (or more) v. 1. The reason they don’t want you to have a gun is because they don’t want to lose their intimidation advantage, or actually get shot when they get uppity.
The only reason you’d fear the concept of an armed person at a public debate is because you intend to do something you know should get you shot.
You can keep your bricks in pillows and other accoutrements of “protest”. I’ll keep my .45. I’ll play nice if you do; Keepin’ it all wordsmithy. BUT, if you don’t play nice and keep it all verbose and shit, well you might get your top popped like a Pringles can.
citing The At;antic as an authoritative source? What ARE you smoking? Or drinking?
Yes, there have been large numbers of protestors show up armed at various events accross the nation. but HOW MANY OF THESE ened up USING those arms preemtively? Not many. I go about everywhere armed, but no one knows it. But I am ready and availble if needed. Until then, it says “concealed”.
On the therhand Auntie Fae and BeeYellEmm show up to “find” pallets of brickes and pavers, “staged” at pre-determined locations to feed the preaplanned “riot” and “actio”. Their skateboarda are lethal weapons, just like the one that clown used to strike Kyle once, and to earn a fatal bullet when he rared back for a second swing at him. Antifa have training videos on the use (and misuse) of those “longboards”. Baseball bats are nowhere near as dangerous when used for assault than those sakteboards. so the clown that got his sorry self venitlated bu Kyle’s second bullet WAS indeed armed. Anindividual is legally “armed” when they have any sort of dangerous weapon or other instrument” (thing) that can or was used to cause serious bodilyharm agaisnt another. EVERY TIME auntiefae”s crowds started thrwoing or catablupeing ( or dropping from above, thigns like frozen one litre water bottles, street paving stones/bricks, molotuf cocktails, swpinging baseball bats or skateboards, swinging the big U shaped bike locks, they ar ARMED with lethal weapons. ANY OF THOSE ITEMS just named can and have been lethal. Oh I forgot the big long slingshots, used to launch the ice bombs, stones, hardballs, commercial garde pyrotechnic devices, oh and let’s not forget the lasers used to blind policemen. blinding another deliberately is considered a letha =l force assault, “serious bodily harm” fits.
Kyle had his rifle (he could not legally possess a handgun in that setting) but his rifle was legally possessed) specifically to help keep the peace and prevent the attempted arson of an occupied structire at his friend’s busienss. which HAD been attacked and damaged the night before, and the perpetrators who were there the first night vowwed to return and finish the job next night). It was ONLY when the arsonist goon squad left off their arson attempt and decided to trya nd steal KYle’s rifle and gave chase he left that private property and ran away fro theml trying to break off the conflict. Three unks tried to down him and take his rifle…. each of them earned their own personal bullet. Two of them never possessed anytning for the rest of their lives. The third now sport a badly maimed right forearm and elbow. Kyle fired three rounds, the instant each of them caused the aggressor to cease his intended assault, he stopped firing. VERY careful use of his rifle, textbook perfect. As many runds as needed to stop the immediate and imminent threat to his own life and those around them (he did NOT want the thugs to get th e rifle, as they THEY would be armed, adn woudl NOT use the restraint he had been using) As SOON as the threat was neutrlaise,d Kyle ended his defense. Cops don’t even behave like that often.. they hit nd kill six ties as many people as armed citizens do. Kyle fired three times each round hit an adult sized person who was rapicly closing in on him to take his rifle had means opportunitny and intent to kill or seriously harm him. Some were shouting out their declared intention. NO ONE ELSE continued to press the atatck on Kyle. He had proven his ability to dish out effective defensive fire but ONLY when no other options were available to him.