Why Doesn’t Senator Kelly Loeffler Approve Of Black People Legally Carrying Firearms?

What Senator Loeffler calls “totally unacceptable” happens to be perfectly legal in her state. These people were reportedly protesting, not unlike the armed people in and around the capitol in Lansing. But whether protesting (legally, non-violently) or choosing to arm themselves in the midst of rioting and looting, that is exactly the kind of activity the Second Amendment was written to protect…and what the Senator seems to find so disturbing.

…Fox interviewed Loeffler amid a montage of young, armed black people protesting police abuse in Atlanta, where a cop recently shot and killed Rayshard Brooks. Another Fox host, Sean Hannity, reported on Tuesday that there were “at least three men brandishing long guns” near the Wendy’s where the incident happened.

Hannity, Fox, and Loeffler all represented this as evidence of the dangers of defunding police. Indeed, one young man with a gun (who seemed perfectly polite and respectful) told Fox he was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun because he didn’t believe police officers would protect him, adding that cops were not going to be “allowed” in this space. Asked what he’d do if police rolled up and ordered him to drop his weapon, the man insisted he had the legal right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution to bear arms: “And at no point will I allow my right to be disturbed.” Good for him!

– Scott Shackford in This Republican Senator Calls Three Black Men Peacefully Carrying Long Guns ‘Mob Rule’

comments

  1. avatar Someone says:

    “Indeed, one young man with a gun (who seemed perfectly polite and respectful) told Fox he was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun because he didn’t believe police officers would protect him, adding that cops were not going to be “allowed” in this space.”

    Good on the observation that cops are not going to protect him.
    Good on gun carry.
    But who died and made you a king, deciding who will or will not be “allowed” in any space that is not your property?

    1. avatar MouseGun says:

      I was about to say. There’s a difference between peacefully protesting while open carrying, and brandishing firearms and forcibly occupying private property. It’s not a good look for any involved or their cause
      (People calling me a Fudd in 3,2,….)

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Nope.
        Not a FUDD.
        Spot on. Open carry arm protest is one thing, brandishing because you don’t want people to enter that space is entirely a different thing. Especially because it’s race baited bullshit propaganda that these people believe.

        1. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

          As a cherished hero and mentor of mine once said, “All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

          Eric Swalwell 2020

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Eric Swalwell
          This is why making drugs legal will never solve any problem. Because a gangster with guns “will never give up the power” they have. It’s all just a Libertarian utopian pipe dream.

        3. avatar Another Ed says:

          Let’s look at the larger quote:

          “Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the “omnipotence of war”. Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. “- Mao Zedong

          So, Mao is Eric Swalwell’s cherished hero and mentor?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_grows_out_of_the_barrel_of_a_gun#:~:text=coined%20the%20phrase.-,Political%20power%20grows%20out%20of%20the%20barrel%20of%20a%20gun,Chinese%20communist%20leader%20Mao%20Zedong.

        4. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

          “Mao believed that the bomb was a ‘paper tiger’, declaring to Khrushchev that it would not matter if China lost 300 million people in a nuclear war: the other half of the population would survive to ensure victory”. -Jasper Becker

          “Comrades, if you have to shit – shit! If you have to fart – fart! You’ll feel much better for it.” -Mao Zedong

          Yep…. Definitely my kind of guy.

          Eric Swalwell 2020

        5. avatar Gordon in MO says:

          Eric Swalwell says: June 26, 2020 at 10:53 (As a cherished hero and mentor of mine once said, “All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”)

          The quote came from Mao Zedong, as the final conclusive comments during the exigent meeting called by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China during August 1927.

          You admission to being a communist is interesting and provides background for some of your past comments.

        6. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

          *Just a friendly note from our resident Eric Swalwell impersonator: Google search “Eric Swalwell” and you’ll come up with some funny stuff that will give context to my satire.*

          In other words: Gordon in MO, you seem like a nice and intelligent guy (and we had fun and messed around some) but this isn’t a serious thing.

          Eric Swalwell 2020

      2. avatar Big Pimpala says:

        It seems like they’re just standing near the Wendy’s with long guns. Nothing wrong with it.

      3. avatar Tomastwo says:

        Cops will roll up,yell “DROP YOU WEAPON”, cap his ass, fueling anarchy.

      4. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

        No Mousegun you not a fudd. Him claiming someone else’s private property is where he steps over the line into being another criminal.

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Exactly.

    3. avatar Luke Ramsey says:

      He’s clearly just saying the police won’t come. Either because protesters won’t allow it or the authorities won’t, but it’s just a statement of the obvious.

    4. avatar Dude says:

      Everyone’s getting in on the colonizing craze.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        They learned from the best.

    5. avatar GS650G says:

      Watched him too. I wonder if people who don’t look like him are allowed in His Space.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        This. If I’m not holding my fist up high will I be allowed in?

    6. avatar jwm says:

      We see the same sentiment amongst gun owners all the time. Some variation of walling off CA or another liberal state and not allowing those folks to migrate.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        There’s a big difference between fantasizing about Californians being forced to fester in the cesspit of their own creation and people actually standing on the CA border with guns saying that Californians can’t leave. Since this guy was standing around with a gun, he falls into the latter.

    7. avatar Chief Censor says:

      They didn’t want the cops around because they would arrest them for exercising their 1st and 2nd. The riot police were trying to send them all home or imprison them. And the cops are angry at the protesters for giving cops a bad name.

      During their stay in the parking lot of the burnt down Wendy’s they carried long guns. Why? Because they are responsible for their own safety and refuse to dial 911. Guess what happened that night? There was two or three shootings by some hoodlums and a woman was shot in the leg.

      Black people know how black people behave. So, they brought their guns knowing what was likely to happen when there is a large group of people from the hood. They were right and they were prepared.

      By the way, the people have the right to tell the government to fuck off.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        This is all true,except when you say “You are not allowed here” it changes the reason why they are there. I’c certain we’d be all for it, if it wasn’t for the racist cause in the first place. That, and most these people don’t even know they are following a marxist… all they hear is “BLM!” and they think “oh, I’m black, that’s me!”. Stupid. They’d be surprised how much common ground we’d all have with telling the government to fuck off if they would drop the race baiting bullshit. Until then, fuck their racist, marxist cause, and fuck them.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          I don’t think Wendy’s cared that some of the Brooks family was doing a vigil in the parking lot of the burnt down location.

          Maybe if you supported your fellow countrymen and helped educate them they wouldn’t be fooled by communists? If you refuse to help them the communists win by default; that’s on you. A lot of black Americans no longer want the cops around and they want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

          I am no longer hearing heterosexual black people call for gun control. It appears homosexual/trans are still for banning guns.

          If you followed CHAZ/CHOP you would have noticed the lefties were not scared of white men and black men openly carrying ARs and AKs. They welcomed the security of their own little militia. That’s huge progress that the NRA could never achieve. Now imagine if the NRA swooped in with a black lives matter campaign to arm the black community for their safety and security. But, nope, can’t help the black people become empowered. That’s scary, just like when Republicans said militias are domestic terrorists.

          If you had the support of black America and more women, the anti gun communists wouldn’t be able to overthrow the government from within like they are. They would be very limited in their push. Self reliance and self autonomy is not their friend. Gun ownership is empowering and changes the mindset of those that own them like having children changes your outlook on life.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          “Gun ownership is empowering and changes the mindset of those that own them like having children changes your outlook on life.”

          Agreed, and it will probably lead to a better understanding of the absurd so called commonsense laws.

        3. avatar Ad Astra says:

          censor your ignorance of the history of the NRA with African-Americans in the South is truly astounding.

        4. avatar Montana Actual aka Suspicious Fisherman, Knowbody, UnKnown, Everyday Carrier, Threeper, 3prcntr, B.D. says:

          I don’t think they minded either… but like I said 5 times already, when you force people off that property by brandishing, it doesn’t matter if they care of not.

          Quit making shit harder than it is. You are really good at picking scabs when you should just let shit heal.

    8. avatar Debbie W. says:

      I see everything but concern and questioning the headline claiming the senator or others not approving of black people legally carrying firearms.
      Did the senator specifically single out black people or did the author stoop lower than a democRat to get attention?

  2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    The second amendment doesn’t include a color scheme. I support all Americans in buying guns if they are going to be responsible gun owners.

    The Lansing video where the ar-15 was pointed at the biker went from 2a supported act to brandishing/holding someone against their will at the end of a gun real quick.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      We fought a bloody 4 year war to make the rights colorblind. They seem to forget that.

      1. avatar The Haunted Tank says:

        You fought a bloody 4 year war to collect unfair tariffs and taxes and keep bankers and steel barons in power. 3% of people owned slaves, and many union states did not free their until after the war. The famed emancipation proclamation only “freed” slaves in state the union no longer controlled and was nothing more than a propaganda ploy in the hopes of started a slave revolt. Nice work keeping the poor southern boys who had nothing to do with slavery down.

        If Booth hadn’t shot Lincoln then Lincoln would have gone through with his plan to forcibly deport all blacks and we wouldn’t be having these problems. As it was, with Lincoln dead, Grant and Sherman didn’t have the political capital for it and had to turn to genocide against the Indians.

        1. avatar Prndll says:

          ‘We can’t get rid of blacks do we will kill the Indians’

          That makes no sense. This is ridiculous.

        2. avatar paul says:

          We will use black Union soldiers to kill Indians. We will make sure there are black women for them. Hence the term buffalo soldiers and buffalo gals.

        3. avatar Ad Astra says:

          So how many yankee ninjas did it take to sneak in and commandeer all those artillery batteries to open fire on Ft. Sumter?

        4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          And your point is Tank?

        5. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Do you really think blacks back then, especially slaves, would shun the opportunity to return to africa? lol… no. Nothing in history is perfect dude. Are you also denying that the war helped to free slaves? I mean, no shit, war is never what they actually say it’s about, but it’s stupid to sit here and dwell on the past trying to remove it and blame it, when you could be moving forward and acknowledging how far we have come. There is always room for improvement. People like you cannot take criticisms, but you sure can dish it out. You don’t think the majority of people know about all the bullshit ways our government manipulates it’s people, taxes them, etc etc…? Yea, we do. But the second you make it a race war and start spouting off old history that none of us were actually a part of, is the second you lose sight of what we could be doing together to change the future.

      2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        The Confederate War Dead memorial in the center of my town was vandalized the other night. A young woke couple decided to throw red paint on it. High Resolution cameras, ain’t technology a 3itch.

        I have no tolerance for this.

        Perhaps when I am buried protesters will paint graffiti on my headstone because i was one of the thousands who went into Baghdad. An unwoke war to be sure.

        Funny thing is at first President Bush and Powell said it was about weapons of mass destruction and world was in danger…..then somehow overnight it was all about “Iraqi Freedom”.

        Seems familiar somehow…At first Lincoln said it was to “Save the Union”…..two years later it morphed into something else…

  3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    I think this “brandishing” crap has gone too far. I have had to ” brandish” a firearm and it de-escalated the situation quickly. How do you not “brandish a firearm” while BEARING ARMS as per the constitution. Nowhere in the second amendment does it say you have to hide a keep hidden you firearm.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Legally brandishing is displaying a firearm in a threatening manner for no legal cause. Bearing is carrying a holstered pistol, and in most States, a slung rifle. Does that help?

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Further clarification:

        “Bearing” is any time you are holding/possessing a gun, whether in your hand, in a holster, or slung over your shoulder. This is a broad term.

        “Brandishing” is a specific form of bearing, in which you’re holding it at the ready in the presence of an intended target.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          One persons bearing is another brandishing.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          GMB:

          That may be true from a personal perspective but the crime of brandishing is defined as display a weapon in a threatening manner for a non lawful purpose.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      As long as you aren’t pointing it at someone that isn’t a threat.

    3. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

      @Ed Schrade

      Do you like having a gun pointed at you for no good reason? In Lansing that’s what the guy with the gun was doing to the guy on the bike. When someone does that to me I believe they intend to kill me if I don’t act the way they want me to and maybe even if I do. I don’t like that.

  4. avatar tdiinva says:

    A gangbanger generally isn’t carrying a firearm for a lawful purpose. If you believe that the individuals in question were carrying weapons to protect the neighborhood because the police were not allowed in then I would say you are very naive.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Unfortunately it’s not so easy to label them gang bangers. Or anyone else for that matter.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Apparently, you have never been in a gang infested neighborhood.

    2. avatar Mark says:

      When white people do it, it’s just normal people protecting their rights. When black people do it, they’re gang bangers?

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        That’s not what was said.

        1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          Sorry Actual but, yes, yes it was.

          Poorly disguised maybe but pointing to non-white for sure.

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          No it’s not at all. You could replace the word gangbanger with criminal. Nothing implies race, and I NEVER agree with tdiinva, but it certainly was NOT the way that idiot reworded it. Also, I was a white “gangbanger” back in the days. Yea Yea I know…

  5. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Hello? Does ANYONE think the Rule of Law applies any more? Seriously? Given everything that has happened over the past several months, the selective arrests for violating quarantine, and the apathy of the authorities in the face of rioting and looting and murder, I think it’s pretty f*ing clear that one side of the political debate sees the Rule of Law as a joke.

    To say something like this

    But whether protesting (legally, non-violently) or choosing to arm themselves in the midst of rioting and looting, that is exactly the kind of activity the Second Amendment was written to protect

    reveals a deep ignorance or denial of what is going on right now. The mobs can be armed, but honest citizens can’t. Unfortunately, most people won’t wake up until the mob is lining people up against the wall and executing them. THIS is where this is going.

    Get up to speed, Zimmerman. You look like a fool.

    1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

      And the voices on the other side of the political debate are either silent, or defeatist.

      The window for a political solution to this crisis is fast closing. Prepare accordingly.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      The rock is the Rule of Law. The turbulent waves crashing onto it are the mob.

      Just because those who stand on the rock are seeing the water splashing, doesn’t mean the rock is going away.

      1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

        See, this is the sort of thinking I’m talking about. The Rule of Law is not a rock, it does not exist outside of society; it only exists to the degree people will defend it. If people won’t defend it, then the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

        Our leadership needs to stand up now. If they don’t, this nation is done.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          No. You’re in a boat being tossed by the waves, watching the rock and wondering about the scene you’re witnessing. Others are standing on the rock, wondering why you’re out there in the boat complaining about your sea sickness.

      2. avatar Larry says:

        Eventually, the rock will be worn away by the water .

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          so much smoother.

  6. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Well, this is how, some white folks, get into trouble when it comes to inner city gun control laws. Yes that’s right I said it. And its democrats and republicans. And if the libertarians were more focused on getting city people their gun rights back, instead of making drugs legal. The big city crime problems would not be as serious an issue.

    As I said before the avocado is a legal product. But gangsters are murdering farmers to take over this legal product business. Making things legal has never reduced or stopped criminals. Only honest people with guns has stopped criminals.

    I will keep saying it. The scariest thing in america is an articulate black person with gun. And they can be republican, democrat, libertarian, or even a communist. In fact I would say that the black communist with a gun is even more frightening than a white communist with a gun.

    Just look at the reaction to white people dressed in all black. Their faces covered. Waving hammer and sickle flags. And the whites are carrying guns. I hear crickets from the political leadership. Republican, democrat, libertarian. All silent.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Exactly. You’re more than welcome to armed protest, but when you’re a communist piece of shit, and racist, expect opposition from the rest of the armed community.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      The Right has been calling out the mostly white antifa for years. I didn’t hear anyone on the Right freaking out from the very few black men open carrying in the recent 100% peaceful protests. I can guarantee you that most people on the Right would prefer more of those kind of black men peacefully protesting while open carrying. The Left, however, labeled all of the 100% peaceful protesters as terrorists, while labeling the “mostly peaceful” rioters, vandals, and looters as saints just exorcising their rights.

    3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      You are right, legalizing drugs won’t end crime.

      But tell us, when was the last time two beer distributors got into a shoot out over turf?

      When was the last time the Jim Beam warehouse was robbed to steal the cash inside?

      How will substances of known dosage and purity be worse than one that has been stepped on 3 times and includes baby laxative, flour, and roach powder?

      Where are the massive profits currently supported and maintained by government prohibition when a dose can be made in a controlled lab for pennies on the dollar and then sold without the need for smuggling it across national borders? Or even better where are the massive profits when people can grow their medication at home instead of buying it from a government approved business or a cartel?

      Face it, your problem is with freedom. The problems with drug violence and crime stem from the government making it illegal.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        “The problems with drug violence and crime stem from the government making it illegal.”

        100% wrong. No one forces people to live a life of crime. No one is forced to take legal or illegal recreational drugs and alcohol. It isn’t the government’s fault that criminals rob each other and fight over turf. Is it too much to ask to act like a normal person and get a legitimate job? Is it too much to ask not to steal? The problem you refuse to acknowledge is a lack of morals.

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          Making it a crime to take drugs is the problem. What someone does behind closed doors hurting no one except themselves is their business. Smoking the leaves and flowers of the hemp plant or even taking mushrooms that make you feel funny should NOT be a crime. It sure was not for over 100 years in the U.S. and before it was its own country.
          Take the huge profits out of selling drugs and the supply dwindles(or at least the availability in many neighborhoods.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          “Take the huge profits out of selling drugs and the supply dwindles(or at least the availability in many neighborhoods.”

          And then in your fantasy utopia, the drug dealing, thieving criminals will all become legitimate business men that frown upon violence, right?

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          “The problem you refuse to acknowledge is a lack of morals.”

          And this is why I call them the three L’s. Libertarians, Liberals, and Leftist.

          Yes. You are free to choose. But you don’t want to accept the responsibility that goes with it.

        4. avatar andrewinVA says:

          “Take the huge profits out of selling drugs and the supply dwindles(or at least the availability in many neighborhoods.”

          And remove the huge financial incentive to kill your competition and the homicide rate will go down. The War on Drugs has been on of the most damaging things to happen to this country in my lifetime.

        5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to rt66paul

          “What someone does behind closed doors hurting no one except themselves is their business. Smoking the leaves and flowers of the hemp plant or even taking mushrooms that make you feel funny should NOT be a crime.”

          The problem with Libertarians is they support DUI. That’s when you leave your home and expose innocent people to your drug use. By running over them in your car. Or smashing into another person’s business or home. Or crashing into a power pole. And then inconveniencing thousands of electrical power customers. Or they just decide to break into their neighbors home next door. While under the influence.

          Libertarians believe in having a good time. But they don’t believe in having to pay for it. Dead innocent people and tax payers end up having to pay for it

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        “Face it, your problem is with freedom. The problems with drug violence and crime stem from the government making it illegal.”

        No chris. As I have said before on TTAG. I have no problem making drugs legal. I just get to legally shoot a drug user dead on site. When they rob, rape, murder, steal, vandalize, or break into private property. Libertarians don’t support that. Drug users are violating the non aggression principle and you don’t seem to care.

        I guess it all depends on how “you define” the non aggression principle.

        Drug users have destroyed private and public property. And Libertarians are very comfortable with that. Because Libertarians don’t believe in holding drug users accountable. But Libertarians do support a government big enough to supply people with “free” pot or “free” crystal meth. All approved by the government of course. In a libertarian approved government “Drug Injection Center”. It’s a fact that drug users bring down property values.

        Watching the last Libertarian presidential and VP debates. They NEVER mentioned gun civil rights. Not at all. Not even once.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          There is a catch 22 to the faux Libertarian non-aggression principle. Faux Libertarians do not believe sovereignty extends beyond the individual. The individual makes the law. Sovreign individuals treat with other sovreign individuals through market transactions. If the other individual doesn’t give you what you want you are free to take it. Faux Libertarians don’t actually believe in property rights. Proof: The Libertarian Party supported California’s Prop 48 which legalized petty theft. (Cost too much to enforce the current law.) Translation:
          it is a source of income for drug addicts who can’t hold a job. It still takes money to buy legal drugs. Faux Libertarians are anarchists. You will find many of them supporting BLM and Antifa actions over the past few weeks at least until they get roughed up by their heroes. (The Yankee Marshal)

        2. avatar rt66paul says:

          Libertarians do not support DUI, they are about personal responsibility, at least to people I know are. Everyone has their book of rules(morality as they see it), but Libertarians do not expect everyone to have to same morals, just enough to live in our society. Going out to the desert to the Burning Man Festival, and taking mushrooms, hurts no one but themselves. If they feel this is happiness, who are we to judge them?

  7. avatar Rifleman762 says:

    I don’t think she’s saying open carry is unacceptable at all – she’s referring to mob rule and defunding the police as being acceptable. And she’s right.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      If that’s the case, yes. I think this article is bullshit to be honest with you. The majority don’t give a fuck what race you are.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        The only people who don’t care about race are suicidal whites afraid of being called names by communists.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Wait..what?

      2. avatar Dan W says:

        The majority of white people don’t care what race you are. All the other races are perfectly happy to favor their own.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          When I was a kid in school waaay back in the 80’s, no one cared about skin color at the schools I went to. You were either cool or you weren’t. Keep in mind, this was in the “racist” south.

          Now white dems are doing their best to start a race war. What can they offer black voters? They have to make them believe that the other side hates them. I love how they pretend we never had any civil rights legislation. Now they virtue signal by making completely useless laws like making lynching a hate crime. How often do we have lynchings again? What black people really want is the same thing white people want, peace and prosperity. The dems can’t allow black people to realize that Trump was delivering this for everyone. Black people made more gains in employment and wage growth in 3 years under Trump, than in 8 years under Obama.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Dude
          President Trump was on his way to getting at least 30% of the black vote. He would have crushed the democrat party into the dustbin of history. That is why the Left is trying to start a civil war.
          The problem is the right has far more guns and ammo than the left does. It’s very hard for the Left to catch up. Since they pasted all this gun control over the past few decades.
          (smile)

          I think he still will get a huge percentage of the black vote. Because Blacks know its white people dressed in all black waving hammer and sickle flags. And who are burning down black owned businesses.

  8. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Police never existed to save you in the first place.
    Brandishing, and open carrying in protests are entirely different. When you’re blocking off people’s means of travel, like roads, that’s not only fucked up, but it’s illegal. There’s always been talk about the gun community being divided, and I hate to say it, but this is it. Most armed protesters will not tolerate his behavior, or his demands and dictatorship. When they learn to leave the race baiting out of it, then we’ll talk.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    Golly I’m damned if I agree & damned if I disagree. How about if you destroy property,loot and riot while open carrying you get a very long prison sentence-black or whitel??? BLM is a terrorist group. Ditto for Antifa…

  10. avatar Dude says:

    Would Scott Shackford be cool with armed men deciding to take over his property, you know since he’s so 2A woke and all? I guess as long as it’s someone else’s property it’s all good. Taking over a private property, and refusing certain people access IS NOT the same as protesting the government on public property. Scott Shackford sounds like a virtue signalling fool.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      I read Reason Magazine too. He is a great example of a Libertarian hypocrite.

  11. avatar Don from CT says:

    And this, in a nutshell is what’s wrong with Republicans.

    Yeah, they’re better than Dems.

    But come over to the Dark Side of libertarianism.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      When Libertarians support law abiding people shooting rioters and looters, you let me know.
      Or when they support the government shooting rioters and looters you me know.

      1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

        Sure, no problem if they are trying to attack you. Everyone gets to defend themselves by the best means available.

      2. avatar Peter Gunn says:

        “Because Libertarians don’t believe in holding drug users accountable.”

        Libertarian Party Platform

        1.0 PERSONAL LIBERTY
        Individuals are inherently free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may rightly initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Libertarians reject the notion that groups have inherent rights. We support the rights of the smallest minority, the individual.

        1.1 Self-Ownership

        Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.

        “When Libertarians support law abiding people shooting rioters and looters, you let me know.”

        Libertarian Party Platform

        1.9 Self-Defense

        The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Now show me any elected Libertarian telling shopkeepers they have a right to shoot rioters and looters???

          It nice to put words to paper. Now does the leadership practice what they preach???

          Here is your reading assignment for the weekend. Go read the Republican platform. And tell me do they practice what they preach???

        2. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          There has always been, and will always be, an inherent stumbling block on the path from “preach” to “practice”- that’s the fickle and fallible quintessence of human nature.

          My perspective on the Republican platform emanated from decades of being a Republican, but never being able to reconcile numerous elemental disconnects. To me, the Republican platform is principally intelligent, conscientious, and commendable- but, nonetheless, is just a lamentable sales pitch for a political party. It is pervaded with an unremitting “us vs them” mentality, which presents an unsettling “we’re right- you’re wrong” approach, and the resultant “join us or be against us” ultimatum.

          In my view, there is a transcendent, unequivocal differentiation between politics and philosophy. Philosophy emanates from the singular “I”- me, you, the individual… the only person you’ll ever be able to control. Politics is communal by nature, and when imbued with human nature, it routinely becomes an instrument of coercion. I read the Republican platform as a treatise for political power, and the Libertarian platform as an advocacy for the unalienable rights of the individual. We the People, human beings- ALL of us. Regardless of “politics”.

        3. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

          “unremitting “us vs them” mentality, which presents an unsettling “we’re right- you’re wrong” approach, and the resultant “join us or be against us” ultimatum.”

          Yo Pete, do the names Pelosi or Schumer mean anything at all to you? Wow do you have it backwards.

        4. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          I find it superfluous to mention the Democratic platform- it contains the same vainglorious dogma as the Republican platform, only without the aforementioned intelligence, conscientiousness, or commendableness.

  12. avatar (((TTAG))) hates white people says:

    Another appeal to blacks, thus ceding moral authority to the left. Way to cuck, TTAG.

    1. avatar You So Stupid It Should Hurt says:

      Cuck? Cuck, cuck, cuck…… That’s the sound a hen makes when she wants a rooster to shag her.

      You need shagging ol’ hen?

    2. avatar Dan W says:

      I’ve noticed every post is about our new dark skinned saints.

      1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

        Neither saints or sinners. Learn to judge each individual person on their merits. Skin color and other physical traits mean nothing compared to what that persons character is. No group has a monopoly on either saints or sinners.

        1. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          The genius of ^that^. Like a diamond bullet right through the forehead. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure.

  13. avatar enuf says:

    “Why Doesn’t Senator Kelly Loeffler Approve Of Black People Legally Carrying Firearms?”

    Completely misleading title and news media video. She is not saying any such thing, she is not talking about that video montage. She couldn’t even see that video, that was in the media studio while she is looking at a camera as she is interviewed in some public space.

    Don’t confuse what she is saying with the video she doesn’t even know is being shown at the same time.

    We should all be perfectly aware that there are two very different types of citizens out there carrying long guns and side arms. The people who are not going to tolerate looting and arson and the people who think they can seize parts of a city and declare it autonomous from all authority. One group stands for the rule of law and the other opposes that rule of law. One group will demand the public be allowed to go about their daily affairs unmolested by gun wielding thugs, the other group are those gun wielding thugs.

    1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

      Enuf:
      That last paragraph just about says it all.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      That’s very erroneous. You must be older.

      There has been a shift in culture with the younger generations. It’s now a divide between the Zoomers Millennials and the X Boomers. It’s old versus young, not Democrat versus Republican. You know the parties are not like they were in 2000. The culture shifted once the youth became adults.

      Don’t believe it? Don’t think a cultural revolution is happening? Well, go watch the youth tear down dozens of statues of old America.

      The country has changed while you sat at home. Once the youth are out at night changing America you will awake to see something happened while you were sleeping.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        The children that hate this country are proving that propaganda and indoctrination works.

      2. avatar Ad Astra says:

        That’s hillarious. You act like you have some never before seen insight but all this has happened before in the 60s. Age groups always clash in fact the Boomers you disparage were the ones doing the uprising back in the 60s.

  14. avatar 24and7 says:

    SHE BE RAYSISSSS!!

  15. avatar 24and7 says:

    There is only going to be one remedy for all criminals soon…300% increase in pig farmers…Sick and tired of this government standing up for the criminal element in this nation

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Antifa set fire to Portlandia this morning. I love it when the left devours its own.

    Tell me again about the “mostly peaceful” protesters. Tell me again why we should support the 2A rights of criminals.

    The truth is I’m happy that Antifa is setting fires. I hope they arm up and resume killing people. That’s when this country will enjoy what it really needs — a reckoning.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Sad but true.

    2. avatar Sniper says:

      Rioters and looters should be shot on sight! Drop the first 2 or 3 looting a business the rest will quickly leave the scene. Rioters toppling statues and burning police cars would go home as fast as they can after the pyro lighting every thing on fire is dropped in their tracks .

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Nope. Harming rioters, whom destroy public property, only encourages them to shoot government. That already happened a few times. The former military guys have been the ones blasting away, whereas the civilian types have been stabbing cops.

        That’s why the government refused to bring out the military like the old days. They had intel showing that would only cause an armed insurrection with multiple factions joining in against the government. They warned the local government about that intel so cops could prepare for attacks. Then attacks came and cops died. This lead to cops standing down and allowing the people to take out their rage on property. The government decided it was best to stop showing up to work so the populace will get tired of all the craziness and demand police to return with more power than ever. However, that’s not exactly working as planned.

        Now the media is trying to distract from the situation by going back to covering covid. We all know they pretend to be against the government… They have to go back to something that benefits the government but doesn’t help the Republicans. They will start saying there is a second wave, we are all going to die, now vote for Democrats this election. Then the Republicans will start pretending to care about the spread of covid to help their chances for their reelection, although they said before the riots it was not a big deal.

        I can’t wait to see what people do for fourth of July.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          How the fuck do you know what intel the entire government had. You work at fucking Taco Bell. Just stop dude.

    3. avatar Someone says:

      I’m afraid that you are right. This craziness will get pushed too far and when the pushback wave comes, it will smash everything in its way. Patience is running out.

  17. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    Someone says: >>> June 26, 2020 at 18:03

    This craziness will get pushed too far and when the push back wave comes, it will smash everything in its way. Patience is running out.

    __Someone, nice handle by the way, you mentioned something very relevant and important [that most here have no idea or clue about]. That is, something has been unleashed, kind of same like the Kung Flu got out of the lab in Wuhan, and now it can’t be put back.

    Ann Coulter, she’s ultra-conservative?, and opinions about her are all over the map, but I suppose she’s probably hell in the bedroom. That bean pole thin body plus a tall drink of water type… In any case her recent comments as to the ”craziness will get pushed too far”, but more to the point that ‘ it ‘ can’t be put back.

    “Democrats are courting political forces beyond their control, referring to rioters, looters, and vandals operating amid recent unrest following the death of George Floyd. You can’t call the mob off, O‘kay, boys. It’s November 4th. We’ve defeated Trump. Now everybody settle down. That doesn’t happen. You’ve unleashed this beast, and there’s no one there to stop it.”

    Also consider the set up to what has taken place as the process started decades ago. The four components to the ideological subversion of a nation: Demoralization / Destabilization / Crisis / Normalization /

    Marxist-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. – Yuri Bezmenov

    https://dystopiausa.com/yuri-bezmenov-on-ideological-subversion/

    Jimmy Beam says: >>> June 26, 2020 at 09:08

    Just look at the reaction to white people dressed in all black. Their faces covered. Waving hammer and sickle flags.

    __Right you are Jimmy, and it’s not a coincidence. White people dressed in all black, antifa/soros operatives, plus BLM is actually, in large part, young delusional and misguided white women, loony liberals, acting out – as do-gooders on a crusade – to try to end ‘systemic racism’.

    Rush Limbaugh suggested that Trump re-launch his campaign. “All of the language should revolve around a singular promise: to preserve the ‘American Way of Life’,” he said.

    The American way of life is opposed by the divisive nature of multiculturalism, and the false history of the New York Times‘ “1619 Project”: According to the 1619 way of thinking, we are not one people but a collection of different peoples. This teaches race consciousness, not colorblindness. The 1619 version of history is backward-looking and teaches us that our top priority should be reparations. Its major contention—that capitalism is a form of slavery—is a brief for socialism. The 1619 Project teaches that America—its values, customs, and institutions—is evil. A vote for a Democrat at any level is a vote for the multicultural project to destroy America.

    And also, and further, from Ann C., “What they’re worrying about is people being persuaded, and their argument is that anything they disagree with is hurtful, is hate speech, and it must be stopped.”

    You see the story today about companies pulling advertising from Facebook and Instagram because points of view they disagree with, from DJT and others, that is being allowed on Facebook is hate speech. In multiculturalism the enforcement part of the doctrine is ‘political correctness’, so you see all manner of actions in society to be PC or get PC – especially where it has anything to do with BLM.

  18. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    Rifleman762 says: >>> June 26, 2020 at 08:53

    I don’t think she’s saying open carry is unacceptable at all – she’s referring to mob rule and defunding the police as being UN-acceptable. And she’s right.

    __I added [UN-] to your comment Rifleman762 because I believe that’s what you ~meant to write. I agree with your take but, without more information, I can’t be sure about this story.

    “What they’re worrying about is people being persuaded, and their argument is that anything they disagree with is hurtful, is hate speech, and it must be stopped.”

    Doesn’t it seem like this is also ~really what this ‘Doesn’t Senator Kelly Loeffler Approve Of Black People Legally Carrying Firearms?’ story comes down to. It’s hard to believe that Kelly Loeffler did state that she did not approve of black people legally carrying firearms.

    In general, Kelly Loeffler is much too smart to ever make such a statement. Making such a statement would be political suicide in this environment plus she’s a favorite of governor Kemp. And, well, she’s from Georgia{intelligent?}, not CA or MN, so I want to see more details and more information about this story.

    The last thing a politician ever wants to have happen is to have anything deemed to be hate speech credited to them; however, anything said by anybody on the right, that those on the left disagree with, is now always subject to being twisted, or taken out of context. All in all it’s hard to tell sometimes right now if something is on the level.

    Facebook Insider: Company Allowed Users to Demonize Whites, Men, Cops / hate speech?

    CNN’s Lemon: Trump’s Message Is ‘Scary Black People’ Are Trying to Take Away ‘White People’s America’ / hate speech?

    Ayanna Pressley: BLM a ‘Rallying Cry,’ ‘Pay Us What You Owe Us’ / hate speech?

    United We Dream activists, mexicans, soros operatives, claim arresting and deporting illegal aliens is rooted in “white supremacy” and “systemic racism.” Bad whitey, bad bad whitey, LMAO Everything is free in America until the teet runs dry.

    BEWARE OF MULTICULTURALISM combined with needing to always be PC …

    … associated with “identity politics,” “the politics of difference,” and “the politics of recognition,” all of which share a commitment to ~revaluing disrespected identities and ~changing dominant patterns of representation and communication that ~marginalize certain groups.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Grim Reaper, Ron, Ned Pepper

      Come on man. You are one person with some serious mental instability going on. I might get pretty vulgar from time to time, but the dumb that flows through your random accounts and trollish attempts is mind boggling and the prime example of a failed parenting plan.

  19. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    What we may be witnessing here is the “orchestra conductors” of “the Left” encouraging this “brandishing”/”bearing” of firearms by what I’ll describe as “confrontational ‘urbans'”, it’s a ploy to scare the uninformed who will then demand legislators further restrict our 2nd Amendment rights especially when it comes to various forms of carry.

    Remember EVERYTHING is carefully choregraphed by “the Left’s” handlers (puppeteers) nothing is left to chance, they follow Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” to the letter. I challenge anyone to disprove the notion that an emotional Black male seemingly with poor impulse control present at the scene of a riot/highly charged protest is anything but “scary” to the non-gun public.

    The fact is “they”, the Bolsheviks (Democrats), would and have sacrificed Blacks before, a shooting of one male of that community by police or a person of another race (even a “White Hispanic”) in the scene referenced in the article above would be seized upon by the biased media and politicians and result in hellfire being reigned down on the heads of gun owners everywhere.

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