Why liberals are repulsive

Sigequinox220

Sigequinox220

Well-Known Member
Benefactor
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
1,989
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Defiant business owners starting to garner unsolicited and voluntary armed protection as they reopen under the most dire financial constraints.


Story about a bar owner in TX...what really gets me are Hippe liberal comments like the quote below:

—“But the rally still appeared to portend a dangerous new trend: armed protesters showing up at businesses operating in the face of social distancing orders, daring law enforcement officials to shut them down.”

https://apple.news/AOKpLYRhVSNafXkZfcCqB5Q

This is EXACTLY what an armed citizenry is for. To protect the citizenry. Like the TX carrry association guy says, “if gov is going to increase police presence, then we will increase our presence”. It’s like liberals see the 2A as a cute little right they get to let drooling right wing heathens have to shoot paper, and then get fired up when $h!t starts getting real and the 2A is being used not for recreation, but it’s designed purpose.
 
Last edited:
The Senior guy at Open Carry Texas is a jackass, and leadership in TX is generally pro 2a, heck it’s common to have meetings in the capitol where everyone is armed, I've been to plenty.

A bar owner has agreed to follow certain rules in order to run her bar, some of those rules suck, but she agreed to them. Now she is breaking them, and that has consequences. There is no good reason for armed citizens to be protesting this at this time and place. This whole thing is a contrived publicity stunt, she wants the attention and support from patrons, he wants more contributions to Open Carry Texas, and you well lets just say that PT Barnum would say that its easy to separate you from your money.

it’s Friday somewhere!
 
He’s not wrong, it does seem to be a trend and it is dangerous. And?
 
I think of the issue from a somewhat different angle.

Conservatives often take the position of 'leave me alone if I'm not hurting anyone and I'll leave you alone.'

Liberals often take the position of 'I get to do as I please but everyone else must to do as I say ... or else.' And that is repulsive.
 
JimB said:
The Senior guy at Open Carry Texas is a jackass, and leadership in TX is generally pro 2a, heck it’s common to have meetings in the capitol where everyone is armed, I've been to plenty.

A bar owner has agreed to follow certain rules in order to run her bar, some of those rules suck, but she agreed to them. Now she is breaking them, and that has consequences. There is no good reason for armed citizens to be protesting this at this time and place. This whole thing is a contrived publicity stunt, she wants the attention and support from patrons, he wants more contributions to Open Carry Texas, and you well lets just say that PT Barnum would say that its easy to separate you from your money.

it’s Friday somewhere!
Click to expand...

when criminals are being let out of jails while police are arresting citizens for 6ft violations and opening their business’, it is a wonderfully good reason for people to be forcing governments hand with arms.

if you don’t want to go to a bar during a pandemic, stay home. Big boy rules.
 
Sigequinox220 said:
when criminals are being let out of jails while police are arresting citizens for 6ft violations and opening their business’, it is a wonderfully good reason for people to be forcing governments hand with arms.

if you don’t want to go to a bar during a pandemic, stay home. Big boy rules.
Click to expand...
You aren’t paying attention, the people aren’t forcing the governments hand with arms, they specifically say that they are peacefully milling about in protest. I won’t deny them their right to be armed while doing so, but just because you can doesn’t mean you you should. Drama for the weak minded to make money, that’s all it is and it really doesn’t help preserve any rights for anyone. Heck if they wanted to help they’d have all been inside the bar unarmed and make the police drag them out as limp dolls, but that doesn’t help the gun rights guy make money.

Actually had a meal and a beer in a bar this week.
 
gc70 said:
I think of the issue from a somewhat different angle.

Conservatives often take the position of 'leave me alone if I'm not hurting anyone and I'll leave you alone.'

Liberals often take the position of 'I get to do as I please but everyone else must to do as I say ... or else.' And that is repulsive.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I’d say Libertarians instead of conservatives.
There’s very little difference between the R’s & D’s. One has a faster train to Marxism.
 
JimB said:
You aren’t paying attention, the people aren’t forcing the governments hand with arms, they specifically say that they are peacefully milling about in protest. I won’t deny them their right to be armed while doing so, but just because you can doesn’t mean you you should. Drama for the weak minded to make money, that’s all it is and it really doesn’t help preserve any rights for anyone. Heck if they wanted to help they’d have all been inside the bar unarmed and make the police drag them out as limp dolls, but that doesn’t help the gun rights guy make money.

Actually had a meal and a beer in a bar this week.
Click to expand...

it was at the lady’s bar, not storming the steps of the governors office. Defensive, not offensive.

And a voyeur money scheme conspiracy is not the only possibility. Of course things this out of the norm will be news worthy. I would go as far as saying “pray this remains newsworthy” because we have much bigger problems if it becomes the new norm.

with the VA protests and such I was on the “don’t be the guy who gets all the photos and stories detracting from the message” side. This is NOT THAT. This isn’t over the annual exchange of what metal or plastic parts are legal/not legal and how to interpret what gun parts are covered by the 2A...this is the very essence of the 2A. Whether with 10 rounds, 30 rounds, a revolver or a Glock...this is taking up arms in a far more existential way.
 
Sigequinox220 said:
it was at the lady’s bar, not storming the steps of the governors office. Defensive, not offensive.

And a voyeur money scheme conspiracy is not the only possibility. Of course things this out of the norm will be news worthy. I would go as far as saying “pray this remains newsworthy” because we have much bigger problems if it becomes the new norm.

with the VA protests and such I was on the “don’t be the guy who gets all the photos and stories detracting from the message” side. This is NOT THAT. This isn’t over the annual exchange of what metal or plastic parts are legal/not legal and how to interpret what gun parts are covered by the 2A...this is the very essence of the 2A. Whether with 10 rounds, 30 rounds, a revolver or a Glock...this is taking up arms in a far more existential way.
Click to expand...
I never said offensive or defensive, you said “force the government” which seems to imply offensive but now you say defensive, so I’m not sure if you’re backtracking or just arguing both positions. And just to be sure that we’re right on the facts, the armed protestors were supposed to be at her home which is adjacent to the bar; it would be illegal for them to be armed at the bar in TX and they didn’t want to break the law. Again I say, they were milling about armed in an ineffective protest.

Maybe it could be about something other than money, like what? It’s not about her supposed rights to open, because she doesn’t have those. It’s not a protest of business closings generally because that would have been more effective either at the capital or unarmed as a sit-in at the bar. Obviously it wasn’t to protect her from arrest because she got arrested. Not about raising awareness that the gov’t will enforce the closure of bars, they’ve done it a number of times already and everyone knows it. That leaves what, a bluff to try to intimidate the police, that has worked a few times in history but it’s exceedingly rare. So if none of those and not about raising money then please explain to me what they intended to accomplish, why were they there?

Just to be clear, are you saying that if government is going to prevent small business owners from making a living then it’s time to start throwing lead.
 
JimB said:
Just to be clear, are you saying that if government is going to prevent small business owners from making a living then it’s time to start throwing lead.
Click to expand...
I'm more in favor of firing up the hot tar wagons and get a bunch of cheap feather pillows from Dollar General. And have us a good old time decorating politicians!:eek::D
 
JimB said:
Just to be clear, are you saying that if government is going to prevent small business owners from making a living then it’s time to start throwing lead.
Click to expand...
The $64,000 question here is, has "government" overstepped its bounds to the point where it has become tyrannical. If it has, then The People have every right, if not an outright responsibility, to rebel by any and all means and no that does not mean go plead pretty please in some stupid "court" for the govt. to correct it's behavior.

Your comment about how the people should have sat unarmed and remained passive while govt thugs used force and violence against them is complete folly and BS. The people should have seen to it that the only thing those thugs would ever be able to enforce again is a glazed doughnut hole. The line of thinking that has become pervasive in this country in the last, how ever many decades, that The People must remain passive and that the govt has unrestricted monopoly on force is wrong and stupid.
 
BatteryOaksBilly said:
I still don't understand the whole idea of showing up armed with ARs and body armor and then just handing em over and getting in the paddy wagon?? Halloween dress up to scare.....nobody??
Click to expand...

Harmless posturing, saying you're going to kick my ass but never finding time to get started.... One side was chicken and the other side was glad they were..
 
@Sigequinox220 , liberals are not repulsive, really. It helps to think of them as really really stupid children with the unfortunate additional attribute of being saddled with all the privileges of adulthood, but none of the common sense to use them properly. It is the job of those of us who are aware of that fact to lovingly care for them like the gibbering idiots that they are.
 
Goofyfoot2001 said:
Libertarians are liberals is why I left that group.
Click to expand...
Years ago the anti Constitutional progressives (Teddy Roosevelt being a driving force) Were frowned upon because of their socialistic ways.
Their fix was to fo the masses , as any good Marxist would do, and stole the title Liberal.
A classical Liberal is for liberty, so should the Libertarians.
 
noway2 said:
The $64,000 question here is, has "government" overstepped its bounds to the point where it has become tyrannical. If it has, then The People have every right, if not an outright responsibility, to rebel by any and all means and no that does not mean go plead pretty please in some stupid "court" for the govt. to correct it's behavior.

Your comment about how the people should have sat unarmed and remained passive while govt thugs used force and violence against them is complete folly and BS. The people should have seen to it that the only thing those thugs would ever be able to enforce again is a glazed doughnut hole. The line of thinking that has become pervasive in this country in the last, how ever many decades, that The People must remain passive and that the govt has unrestricted monopoly on force is wrong and stupid.
Click to expand...

So, in your opinion, based on what you said in the second paragraph above, government has become tyrannical and these guys should have opened fire on law enforcement, is that correct?

You seriously underestimate the value of passive resistance and you’re saying it’s ineffective because not resisting has been ineffective. Think some on this, because they are absolutely not the same thing. Think about how the media would play police attacking, maybe with flashbangs or gas, a group of folks just sitting in a bar that is “illegally” open vs the police doing the same to a bunch of guys carrying rifles.

BatteryOaksBilly said:
I still don't understand the whole idea of showing up armed with ARs and body armor and then just handing em over and getting in the paddy wagon?? Halloween dress up to scare.....nobody??
Click to expand...
Bailey Boat said:
Harmless posturing, saying you're going to kick my ass but never finding time to get started.... One side was chicken and the other side was glad they were..
Click to expand...

You’re both right, the reason is that the organizer wants to make money and the participants are soft in the head.
 
BatteryOaksBilly said:
Liberal and Gay...stolen. Two wonderful words...bastardized.
Click to expand...
Double like, as a matter of fact, that post makes me feel a bit gay.

It drives my family nuts when I correct them any time the word gay is misused. "He's gay." I'll reply, "He doesn't look joy filled to me. Have you looked into the suicide statistics of queers? The stats indicate they really aren't that gay."
"Stop it dad/husband! You know words change."
 
JimB said:
So, in your opinion, based on what you said in the second paragraph above, government has become tyrannical and these guys should have opened fire on law enforcement, is that correct?
Click to expand...
First, I did not say that the govt. has become tyrannical, though I believe in some places it clearly has. While I believe this is a problematic trend on the national scale and the clock is ticking on the (former) United States, the problem is more evident at the state and even local level. I said, "if it has," and the question is largely irrelevant on an individual basis and has to be answered collectively by the population base. A population that has the inherent right to decide when it’s time to declare their reasons to dissolve said Government; which was presumably instituted to further people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and establish a new one in it's place.

I also did not say they should have opened fire. I said they should be dealt with in a manner that ensures they (the enforcers) no longer have any semblance of authority in that community or ability to command it. However, should the govt.'s troops decide to escalate to or use lethal force they should be treated like any other common thug or criminal, at which point deadly force becomes a justified response. There is also a whole continuum of force between compliance and killing. The point being is that govt. doesn't have a monopoly on it and it way past time that the politicos get the message that they don't rule like kings and only have power the People are willing to allow. At the same time I do not agree with allowing the govt. troops to "arrest" so much as a stinky dog turd and passively resisting and going to a govt. "court" because it would still represent legitimizing an illegitimate system. Legitimate systems don't let criminals out of prison and then imprison peaceful people for daring to open their bar, restaurant, or hair salon.

You seriously underestimate the value of passive resistance and you’re saying it’s ineffective because not resisting has been ineffective. Think some on this, because they are absolutely not the same thing. Think about how the media would play police attacking, maybe with flashbangs or gas, a group of folks just sitting in a bar that is “illegally” open vs the police doing the same to a bunch of guys carrying rifles.
Click to expand...
I can see the media reacting perfectly to having a bunch of govt. troops being publicly humiliated and put on parade. Like I said, in my previous post - the only thing they would have authority over at that point would be a glazed doughnut hole because they'd be too embarrassed to ever show their face in town again and would likely be driven out. Not to mention the harassment their families would be forced to endure.
 
@JimB Surely you don’t think the liberal media is going to join hands with unarmed citizens who get tazed or beaten with a club for not staying home. I don’t know what you do for a living but it’s apparent you are not collecting an unemployment check. As for the guys with the ARs- either use them or lose them. Don’t go acting like a badass if you are not one.
 
An AR against an APC is suicide by cop.
What they did accomplish is to get a lot of bad press for the sheriff.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
First, I did not say that the govt. has become tyrannical, though I believe in some places it clearly has. While I believe this is a problematic trend on the national scale and the clock is ticking on the (former) United States, the problem is more evident at the state and even local level. I said, "if it has," and the question is largely irrelevant on an individual basis and has to be answered collectively by the population base. A population that has the inherent right to decide when it’s time to declare their reasons to dissolve said Government; which was presumably instituted to further people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and establish a new one in it's place.

I also did not say they should have opened fire. I said they should be dealt with in a manner that ensures they (the enforcers) no longer have any semblance of authority in that community or ability to command it. However, should the govt.'s troops decide to escalate to or use lethal force they should be treated like any other common thug or criminal, at which point deadly force becomes a justified response. There is also a whole continuum of force between compliance and killing. The point being is that govt. doesn't have a monopoly on it and it way past time that the politicos get the message that they don't rule like kings and only have power the People are willing to allow. At the same time I do not agree with allowing the govt. troops to "arrest" so much as a stinky dog turd and passively resisting and going to a govt. "court" because it would still represent legitimizing an illegitimate system. Legitimate systems don't let criminals out of prison and then imprison peaceful people for daring to open their bar, restaurant, or hair salon.


I can see the media reacting perfectly to having a bunch of govt. troops being publicly humiliated and put on parade. Like I said, in my previous post - the only thing they would have authority over at that point would be a glazed doughnut hole because they'd be too embarrassed to ever show their face in town again and would likely be driven out. Not to mention the harassment their families would be forced to endure.
Click to expand...

So we aren’t all that far apart, but I don’t believe that there is a way to work slowly up the force continuum when you start with “protestors” armed with rifles. The protestors either surrender when asked or the shooting starts, I mean cops may not all be that smart, but I bet they know not to show up to that fight with fists or tazers.

I agree that humiliating them would be a good tactic, but again I don’t see how other than through passive resistance. Make them drag 50 people, who might not be breaking any law, out of the bar. Maybe there are a few injuries, maybe not, but I think it plays much better in the media and to average joe citizen than does an armed confrontation that the protestors almost invariable back down from? Bluffing is not a good strategy when the other side’s job is such that they can’t respond to a bluff, it’s like trying to bluff in electronic poker.


BlackGun said:
@JimB Surely you don’t think the liberal media is going to join hands with unarmed citizens who get tazed or beaten with a club for not staying home. I don’t know what you do for a living but it’s apparent you are not collecting an unemployment check. As for the guys with the ARs- either use them or lose them. Don’t go acting like a badass if you are not one.
Click to expand...

I expect that media would report on excessive force and would by sympathetic to the pressures on small business owners. It’s a story that would play well right now, far better than what they did. Of course it wouldn’t raise money for Open Carry Texas which is what this is really all about.

and you’re right, I’m at work every day, I own a small business and while we qualify as critical I am spending a crazy amount of time and money sourcing PPE.
 
JimB said:
The protestors either surrender when asked or the shooting starts, I mean cops may not all be that smart, but I bet they know not to show up to that fight with fists or tazers.
Click to expand...
There is a third option, which would be tantamount to the cops recognizing that the position they're being asked to enforced is wrong, unconstitutional, or otherwise not a good place to be. That is that they stand down and leave. While that may run contrary to their training that says they need to take command of a situation, honestly, unless it starts happening we're going to have the streets running with red and blue blood.

There was a video on YT recently where this happened. The cops stood down and left at a protest. It is unknown whether or not it had anything to do with the message that a supposed veteran was on a bull horn asking them if they would rather lose their paycheck or their honor, or something similar.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
There is a third option, which would be tantamount to the cops recognizing that the position they're being asked to enforced is wrong, unconstitutional, or otherwise not a good place to be. That is that they stand down and leave. While that may run contrary to their training that says they need to take command of a situation, honestly, unless it starts happening we're going to have the streets running with red and blue blood.

There was a video on YT recently where this happened. The cops stood down and left at a protest. It is unknown whether or not it had anything to do with the message that a supposed veteran was on a bull horn asking them if they would rather lose their paycheck or their honor, or something similar.
Click to expand...
I’ve been drinking, rather a lot, but when I read your first para I thought, yeah right. But that it’s happened is something to ponder, although I can’t see them doing it with folks that are armed.
 
JimB said:
So we aren’t all that far apart, but I don’t believe that there is a way to work slowly up the force continuum when you start with “protestors” armed with rifles. The protestors either surrender when asked or the shooting starts, I mean cops may not all be that smart, but I bet they know not to show up to that fight with fists or tazers.

I agree that humiliating them would be a good tactic, but again I don’t see how other than through passive resistance. Make them drag 50 people, who might not be breaking any law, out of the bar. Maybe there are a few injuries, maybe not, but I think it plays much better in the media and to average joe citizen than does an armed confrontation that the protestors almost invariable back down from? Bluffing is not a good strategy when the other side’s job is such that they can’t respond to a bluff, it’s like trying to bluff in electronic poker.




I expect that media would report on excessive force and would by sympathetic to the pressures on small business owners. It’s a story that would play well right now, far better than what they did. Of course it wouldn’t raise money for Open Carry Texas which is what this is really all about.

and you’re right, I’m at work every day, I own a small business and while we qualify as critical I am spending a crazy amount of time and money sourcing PPE.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s automatically bluffing. Intent is a component. Countries do this all the time. It’s force escalation and observing response behavior. The People are handicapped from the start since the other side gets to make the rules and cuff you for it. Government is not all that different from the way Tony Soprano conducts business.

I’m opening up a speakeasy hair salon, if anyone looking a bit mangy. Go up north and ask folks how passivity has been working out for them.
 
Last edited:
Sigequinox220 said:
I don’t think it’s automatically bluffing. Intent is a component. Countries do this all the time. It’s force escalation and observing response behavior. The People are handicapped from the start since the other side gets to make the rules and cuff you for it. Government is not all that different from the way Tony Soprano conducts business.

I’m opening up a speakeasy hair salon, if anyone looking a bit mangy. Go up north and ask folks how passivity has been working out for them.
Click to expand...
I could use a trim.

I agree that intent is a component, so are you saying that you think they went into this intending to start shooting when the police showed up, but then chickened out? I don’t think so. I think some like minded idiots didn’t really intend to do anything but flip off the government and since they are gun guys they did it with guns even though it would have been far better without. They were going for a two-fer but it’s a fail and served only to make good press for the guy raising money from his soft-headed supporters, see he’s doing something to push back against tyrannical government, better send him some money to continue the fight! Don’t think I’m right, go sign up on their website, I’m sure that one of the first 5 things you’ll get is a request for money and it’ll use this event as an example of why you should send it.

Governments execute tactics to learn something. There may be someone somewhere that learns something from the response to this event, but you’re giving these knuckleheads way too much credit by assuming that the purpose of the exercise was to see how the police would respond.

Media changes perception, and media portrayal of organized crime is romanticized while its portrayal of government is inept, maleficent or both. While there are indeed some similarities, as there are similarities with organized religion, they don’t really operate in the same way once they evolve past the tribal warlord stage. In short, you’re right for much of the developing world, but much less so in the developed world.

So about that haircut...
 
JimB said:
I could use a trim.

I agree that intent is a component, so are you saying that you think they went into this intending to start shooting when the police showed up, but then chickened out? I don’t think so. I think some like minded idiots didn’t really intend to do anything but flip off the government and since they are gun guys they did it with guns even though it would have been far better without. They were going for a two-fer but it’s a fail and served only to make good press for the guy raising money from his soft-headed supporters, see he’s doing something to push back against tyrannical government, better send him some money to continue the fight! Don’t think I’m right, go sign up on their website, I’m sure that one of the first 5 things you’ll get is a request for money and it’ll use this event as an example of why you should send it.

Governments execute tactics to learn something. There may be someone somewhere that learns something from the response to this event, but you’re giving these knuckleheads way too much credit by assuming that the purpose of the exercise was to see how the police would respond.

Media changes perception, and media portrayal of organized crime is romanticized while its portrayal of government is inept, maleficent or both. While there are indeed some similarities, as there are similarities with organized religion, they don’t really operate in the same way once they evolve past the tribal warlord stage. In short, you’re right for much of the developing world, but much less so in the developed world.

So about that haircut...
Click to expand...


your philosophy on this is nearly identical to mine. You can find my logic and verbiage almost verbatim in thread about VA protests.

where we differ I guess, is where we draw the line. when the focal point is firearms and whether or not the citizenry should be allowed to have a vertical piece of plastic on the hand guard, yes this does more PR harm than good. When it comes to protecting ones future and our way of life...that is exactly what 2A Is for.

FWIW, I’m always fond of no shots fired. Especially against police for which I am very pro blue. But I’m not unconditionally so where I will abandon reason. They can put their money where there mouth is, literally, and not enforce such matters that are at expense of their own job. The irony there, is you just have two people wanting to earn a living. If I owned a shop, at some point, it would necessarily become a showdown. Then it becomes a matter of who wants their job more. Or whose willing to risk more. The proprietor has advantage of no job to currently lose, the officer has advantage of being able to arrest people. Both have the risk of dying if both fervidly believe in their cause.
 
Sigequinox220 said:
your philosophy on this is nearly identical to mine. You can find my logic and verbiage almost verbatim in thread about VA protests.

where we differ I guess, is where we draw the line. when the focal point is firearms and whether or not the citizenry should be allowed to have a vertical piece of plastic on the hand guard, yes this does more PR harm than good. When it comes to protecting ones future and our way of life...that is exactly what 2A Is for.

FWIW, I’m always fond of no shots fired. Especially against police for which I am very pro blue. But I’m not unconditionally so where I will abandon reason. They can put their money where there mouth is, literally, and not enforce such matters that are at expense of their own job. The irony there, is you just have two people wanting to earn a living. If I owned a shop, at some point, it would necessarily become a showdown. Then it becomes a matter of who wants their job more. Or whose willing to risk more. The proprietor has advantage of no job to currently lose, the officer has advantage of being able to arrest people. Both have the risk of dying if both fervidly believe in their cause.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we differ on if citizens should be able to have or use firearms, we differ on when it is or is not beneficial for citizens to display those firearms. As a white guy that’s not routinely involved in criminal activity it seems unlikely that I’m gonna get shot by the police for protesting or doing anything else. As soon as I strap on a rifle those odds go from really remote to very small. Start milling about with other guys with rifles who may or may not be all that good about safety and the odds go from very small to small and we add the risk from my co-protestors. So, why include the rifles, they create risk and as I’ve explained above, a negative return in terms of helping the bar owner.

Now please reconsider the situation if you owned the bar. You say that you’d come to a point where there would be a showdown, but really? Government has you shut down for one reason or another and it is apparent that it’s putting you out of business. You decide screw it and open anyway. You get a few customers, maybe make $1,000 before you get arrested. You didn’t resist arrest and so you’re bonded out quick. The next day you open again, and you know that you’re gonna get arrested again. Your business is failing. So, you can go to work armed planning to stay open by force which will certainly result in the failure of your business and almost certainly in the loss of your life, or you can say “F’ it I better find a new way to make a living.” Which do you choose? One path may be better for preserving american freedoms for others, but you’ll be dead, the other you get to go home at night but you’re pissed.
 
JimB said:
So, why include the rifles, they create risk and as I’ve explained above, a negative return in terms of helping the bar owner.
Click to expand...
I too am bumfuzzeled by the rifle/armor tactic.
JimB said:
One path may be better for preserving american freedoms for others, but you’ll be dead, the other you get to go home at night but you’re pissed.
Click to expand...
Jim, I think you have worked this down to it's simplest nature. This may very well be the Last decision some of us make. You may be assured of one thing...if you see me outside my gates with a rifle, either come and help me or leave as quickly as you can. I won't be standing around with a rifle out in public demonstrating. See, I've already made my personal decision.
 
JimB said:
I don’t think we differ on if citizens should be able to have or use firearms, we differ on when it is or is not beneficial for citizens to display those firearms. As a white guy that’s not routinely involved in criminal activity it seems unlikely that I’m gonna get shot by the police for protesting or doing anything else. As soon as I strap on a rifle those odds go from really remote to very small. Start milling about with other guys with rifles who may or may not be all that good about safety and the odds go from very small to small and we add the risk from my co-protestors. So, why include the rifles, they create risk and as I’ve explained above, a negative return in terms of helping the bar owner.

Now please reconsider the situation if you owned the bar. You say that you’d come to a point where there would be a showdown, but really? Government has you shut down for one reason or another and it is apparent that it’s putting you out of business. You decide screw it and open anyway. You get a few customers, maybe make $1,000 before you get arrested. You didn’t resist arrest and so you’re bonded out quick. The next day you open again, and you know that you’re gonna get arrested again. Your business is failing. So, you can go to work armed planning to stay open by force which will certainly result in the failure of your business and almost certainly in the loss of your life, or you can say “F’ it I better find a new way to make a living.” Which do you choose? One path may be better for preserving american freedoms for others, but you’ll be dead, the other you get to go home at night but you’re pissed.
Click to expand...
The problem really begins to arise once the other opportunities to make money aren't easy to get since the government shutdown cuts out other viable ways of making a living.
 
I know not what course others may take ...

If I show up with a firearm, it's because I expect that there's a probability that I will need to use it.
If I want to do that unobtrusively, I will conceal my firearm, assigning a lower probability of need.
If I show up with it openly, I expect to have to use it, assigning a higher level of need.

That said, I do not willingly go places where I expect to have to employ my rifle. I avoid them. That level of trouble is going to have to come to me on my own terms.

And that said, I'll be more than happy to protest tyranny anywhere, anytime.

And finally that said, I avoid crowds like the plague -- 24/7, not just in times of "public health crisis".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom