armed protesters at protest Michigan

[wathe]

I hope it's possible to keep politics out of this discussion.  The politics or what the protest is about aren't the reason for my post.

Canadian speaking here.  I just read this CBC article about protests in Michigan today.  I had a visceral what-the-what reaction to the photo in the article.  It depicts a militia group, armed with assault rifles, standing in front of the governor's office.  Holding them in a ready-to-use-em posture, with fingers either on or right by the trigger.  As an act of protest.  And this is some how fine? 

The article goes on to say that "Police allowed more than 100 protesters to peacefully enter the Capitol building around 1 p.m. ET, where they crammed shoulder-to-shoulder and sought access to legislative chambers, some carrying long guns and few wearing face masks."

Question:  How is this not a threatening display?  This does not seem very peaceful to me.  I just can't imagine how a group occupying a place of government while armed with firearms (assault weapons in the photo) is OK.  I feel like in most parts of the world this would be seen as an act of aggression, maybe even insurrection, not peaceful protest.  I know that gun culture in the US is its own thing, but this seems over the top.  Truly, I'm baffled.

[Melissa in Australia]

As an outsider looking at what goes on over there I am truly baffled. Seems like one of the most dysfunctional countries in the world

[ktgrok]

Not to mention, I'd think that if nothing else they were breaking some kind of law regarding social distancing!

But yeah, as an American, it's nuts. Legal, but nuts. 

Also, incredibly disheartening when you think about how people here would react had those men been of a different skin color. 

[PeterPan]

Not to point out the obvious, but the gov't told 'em to cover their faces so they covered their faces. And then the media goes wow they look like... And also, those are pretty normal guns where I live, south of Michigan. 

So here, I'm going to link for you an article that presents a viewpoint I DON'T agree with. But it's really helpful for showing how this debate is going on in our country and why what you see in that picture makes sense to some people and not to others. https://www.dailypress.com/virginiagazette/opinion/va-vg-edit-letters-fiske-0406-story.html 

[Ausmumof3]

We had a shooting/stabbing in a shopping centre in WA Today

nothing to do with the original topic except vague connection around gun laws.  We seem to be having an increase in shooting events.

[PeterPan]

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

if nothing else they were breaking some kind of law regarding social distancing

Actually that's the crux of a lot of these debates, whether the mandates, edicts, demands, guidelines, etc. being foisted are even legal. They certainly aren't LAWS. No legislature, no act of the people resulted in these. 

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

Not to point out the obvious, but the gov't told 'em to cover their faces so they covered their faces. And then the media goes wow they look like... And also, those are pretty normal guns where I live, south of Michigan. 

So here, I'm going to link for you an article that presents a viewpoint I DON'T agree with. But it's really helpful for showing how this debate is going on in our country and why what you see in that picture makes sense to some people and not to others. https://www.dailypress.com/virginiagazette/opinion/va-vg-edit-letters-fiske-0406-story.html 

Seeing guns in any public place is kind of shocking here.  

[PeterPan]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

We seem to be having an increase in shooting events.

Most of our news is talking about crime being down. 

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, PeterPan said:

Most of our news is talking about crime being down. 

Sorry I didn’t mean specifically related to the pandemic just over the last two years.  I’m not sure what the deal will be pandemic related.  Police have caught a few drug sellers but I suspect that may be because with less people around it’s easier to spot the ones doing stuff they shouldn’t be maybe.

[Terabith]

I don't understand why it is legal to have weapons in the state capitol when I can't take knitting needles or scissors into the courthouse.  

[wathe]

3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Um, yeah, our peaceful protests do not look like that, and anyone with a gun would be arrested quick smart. 

I do not want to be on a protest with protesters who are armed, no matter how well their demands align with mine.

But, different country, different culture?

I don't get it, but I gave up on getting it some time ago.

 

Here too.

 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I don't understand why it is legal to have weapons in the state capitol when I can't take knitting needles or scissors into the courthouse.  

same here. I had to go back to the car once because I had a tiny pocketknife/scissors type keychain in my pocket. But in MI you can walk in to a government building with a gun?

[wathe]

I just can't get past this.  What's the purpose of bringing a gun to a protest?  It's only function is intimidation, as far as I can see.  Assuming the protesters don't actually plan on firing their guns. 

[wathe]

We had the largest mass shooting in our country's history last week.  I will admit, I have been sensitized on the topic.

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Not to point out the obvious, but the gov't told 'em to cover their faces so they covered their faces. And then the media goes wow they look like... And also, those are pretty normal guns where I live, south of Michigan. 

 

I'm not seeing people complain abou tthem wearing masks, I'm seeing people complain that they were packed into that building, ith other people, and many were NOT wearing masks or face coverings.

Also, Those are normal guns for hunting. Not for walking around with. Not for going for a stroll with. Not for taking to the capital building with. Not for going to the grocery store with. Not for anything other than hunting or intimidation. They were there to try to intimidate the lawmakers into seeing things their way. That is not okay. And they didn't have masks on when they got

[Tree Frog]

8 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I don't understand why it is legal to have weapons in the state capitol when I can't take knitting needles or scissors into the courthouse.  

This. Why is anyone allowed to take guns and weapons into the capitol?! I wonder if it was easier to allow them in than have a stand off outside that could easily escalate.

I have had concerns about the increase in gun sales since this started. I don't understand the connection between the guns and the virus, especially at the very beginning even before things were locked down.

Edited May 1, 2020 by wilrunner

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, wathe said:

I just can't get past this.  What's the purpose of bringing a gun to a protest?  It's only function is intimidation, as far as I can see.  Assuming the protesters don't actually plan on firing their guns. 

Moreover, intimidating politicians. With guns. 

Meanwhile an unarmed black man kneels silently and all hell breaks loose.

[ktgrok]

https://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/0313gunsincapitols.aspx

[Frances]

13 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Not to point out the obvious, but the gov't told 'em to cover their faces so they covered their faces. And then the media goes wow they look like... And also, those are pretty normal guns where I live, south of Michigan. 

So here, I'm going to link for you an article that presents a viewpoint I DON'T agree with. But it's really helpful for showing how this debate is going on in our country and why what you see in that picture makes sense to some people and not to others. https://www.dailypress.com/virginiagazette/opinion/va-vg-edit-letters-fiske-0406-story.html 

I’m confused about how the history of the second amendment is related to the picture. Nothing in the article seems related to what they are protesting or why they need to bring guns to do it.

[wathe]

8 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I'm not seeing people complain abou tthem wearing masks, I'm seeing people complain that they were packed into that building, ith other people, and many were NOT wearing masks or face coverings.

Also, Those are normal guns for hunting. Not for walking around with. Not for going for a stroll with. Not for taking to the capital building with. Not for going to the grocery store with. Not for anything other than hunting or intimidation. They were there to try to intimidate the lawmakers into seeing things their way. That is not okay. And they didn't have masks on when they got

I don' think those are hunting guns.  At least not here they aren't.  Those are assault weapons.  Meant for armies and killing people.

[wathe]

8 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Moreover, intimidating politicians. With guns. 

Meanwhile an unarmed black man kneels silently and all hell breaks loose.

The bolded is the bit I just can't get past.

[Frances]

10 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

same here. I had to go back to the car once because I had a tiny pocketknife/scissors type keychain in my pocket. But in MI you can walk in to a government building with a gun?

You also can in my very blue state. They rally at and in the capitol with an amazing amount of firepower at least once per year. But we have no metal detectors, so you can also bring scissors, knives, etc. I will never get used to seeing it and find it very disturbing. I have family members who own guns. But they are kept in locked gun safes except when used for hunting or personal protection (as far as I know, never needed for this). None would ever take them out for a rally, even unloaded.

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, wathe said:

I don' think those are hunting guns.  At least not here they aren't.  Those are assault weapons.  Meant for armies and killing people.

I think maybe hunting weapons as opposed to concealed carry type weapons?  The kind of weapons used for hunting in US are pretty different to the type allowed for hunting here short of a pest control certification or something 

[wathe]

The body armor adds to the intimidation look.

[wathe]

3 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I'm a strict Constitutionalist so will have a much different viewpoint than the dominate much more liberal view on this board. They're using guns, something they have a constitutional right to, in order to protest their other rights being taken away. As a non-gun owner in a very different state from MI, it makes complete sense to me. (The men in the original picture did not have their fingers on the triggers from what I can see. Are they not placed where gun owners are taught to put the finger when not about to shoot?)

Using guns to protest.  Using them how though?  That's my question.  I can't see how their purpose here can be for any reason other than intimidation.

[Frances]

4 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I'm a strict Constitutionalist so will have a much different viewpoint than the dominate much more liberal view on this board. They're using guns, something they have a constitutional right to, in order to protest their other rights being taken away. As a non-gun owner in a very different state from MI, it makes complete sense to me. (The men in the original picture did not have their fingers on the triggers from what I can see. Are they not placed where gun owners are taught to put the finger when not about to shoot?)

Why do they need guns to protest? What is the purpose of bringing guns to a protest?

[Amira]

Pretty much the only people on this planet who would be allowed to do something like this are white Americans.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Amira

[wathe]

1 minute ago, Frances said:

Why do they need guns to protest? What is the purpose of bringing guns to a protest?

Exactly.  Using guns to protest peacefully seems about as oxymoronic as one can get, no?

[Frances]

8 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think maybe hunting weapons as opposed to concealed carry type weapons?  The kind of weapons used for hunting in US are pretty different to the type allowed for hunting here short of a pest control certification or something 

The ones in the picture are not like any hunting guns anyone I know owns. And I grew up surrounded by hunters.

[Ausmumof3]

It would make sense maybe if they were protesting about gun regulation.?  But it’s hard to see the relevance to social distancing.  

[wathe]

Just now, kdsuomi said:

I see them as symbolic, and a very American way of showing that symbolism. That picture did not invoke any idea of intimidation to me, and I come from a very anti-gun place in the U.S.

Interesting.  That photo literally gave me chest tightness and put my heart rate up.  That's a big cultural difference.

[PeterPan]

18 minutes ago, Frances said:

I’m confused about how the history of the second amendment is related to the picture. Nothing in the article seems related to what they are protesting or why they need to bring guns to do it.

The original news article was complaining that they're a "militia" and I'm saying the viewpoint that the 2nd amendment supports a civilian militia is there, historical, and you can see it in that editorial. It explains why they were not just rogue bandits which seems to be what the news was implying. 

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I see them as symbolic, and a very American way of showing that symbolism. That picture did not invoke any idea of intimidation to me, and I come from a very anti-gun place in the U.S.

Symbolic of constitutional rights?  

[Terabith]

Just now, kdsuomi said:

I see them as symbolic, and a very American way of showing that symbolism. That picture did not invoke any idea of intimidation to me, and I come from a very anti-gun place in the U.S.

I grew up in west Tennessee.  My father had (and still has) literally dozens and dozens of guns.  

That is a VERY intimidating picture to me.  That is not protest.  It is intimidation.  

[wathe]

Just now, PeterPan said:

The original news article was complaining that they're a "militia" and I'm saying the viewpoint that the 2nd amendment supports a civilian militia is there, historical, and you can see it in that editorial. It explains why they were not just rogue bandits which seems to be what the news was implying. 

Thought they do kinda look like rogue bandits...... Oy.

[Frances]

1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

The original news article was complaining that they're a "militia" and I'm saying the viewpoint that the 2nd amendment supports a civilian militia is there, historical, and you can see it in that editorial. It explains why they were not just rogue bandits which seems to be what the news was implying. 

So they are or aren’t a self described militia? I’m confused. And I still don’t get why it matters what they label themselves.

[Melissa in Australia]

 

2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Symbolic of constitutional rights?  

Maybe symbolic of thuggery and social dysfunction 

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, kdsuomi said:

Absolutely. The Second Amendment has kind of become the poster child of constitutional rights.

I think it makes sense in that context although it’s still slightly scary.  I’m mostly glad we don’t have a second amendment here.

[Terabith]

Context matters.  A militia drilling tactics or practicing target shooting?  Sure.  

Hordes of them, in a pandemic, with weapons, in a capitol building during a vote?  That's not the actions of a militia.  That's intimidation.  

[wathe]

Side question:  Are US militias a formal group with some kind of government oversight or legal structure , or can a bunch of guys get together and call themselves a militia and be legitimate?

[Ausmumof3]

Dumb question but wouldn’t the point of forming a militia be intimidation or rebellion?

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

To me, thuggery would be handguns, not what is shown in the picture.

Now I’m really confused. A handgun that takes pretty precise aim to kill even one person is thuggery, but an assault weapon that can kill many with very little skill is not?

[Melissa in Australia]

I don't know much about guns but those guns look like they could still kill lots of people. 

I looked it up thuggery in the Cambridge English dictionary - violent behaviour that is criminal or antisocial= harmful to society 

[wathe]

1 minute ago, kdsuomi said:

"Militias" today have no government oversight. We all have constitutional rights to own guns, though. 

So to push further, then how is a militia =/= rural white guy gang?  "A group of thugs" could call themselves a militia and that would be legit?

 

[HeartString]

Carrying guns to a session of the state legislature, while the legislature is debating wether or not to open back up can only carry one message, from my point of view.  The only possible message is “vote the way we want or else violence”.  I can’t see for one second all of those guys, hyped up on adrenaline and testosterone, armed to the teeth just walking away had the legislature voted against them.  I think it’s plain to silly to act like pissed off men, who are armed to the death is not suppose to be evocative of violence and perceived as a threat.  They didn’t carry petunias for a reason. 
 

They could have chosen to protest outside of the building, unarmed. They didn’t. For a reason.  

[HeartString]

4 minutes ago, wathe said:

7 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

So to push further, then how is a militia =/= rural white guy gang?  "A group of thugs" could call themselves a militia and that would be legit?

You’re on to something there. 

[wathe]

2 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

There technically is no difference, but I don't see what that has to do with this scenario. (Militia has nothing to do with their sex, race, or place of living, though.)

Maybe not as formally defined, but in practice I think it really does.  Which also adds to the intimidation factor, I think.

[Frances]

1 minute ago, kdsuomi said:

Yes, but it's probably cultural. We see handguns are things of thugs. Skinheads, gang members, robbers etc. have handguns so in places where those are common they are seen as the scary weapon.

Not sure where you live, but I fortunately don’t see much of either. In real life, it’s mainly once a year at my state Capitol. Given the damage assault weapons have done in the US, I have a very hard time seeing them as anything but very scary. While handguns are also very bad, they are at least more likely to be used in situations where both sides have them. Usually when assault weapons are used, it’s one person killing many unarmed people.

[Frances]

7 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Well, I guess you can kind of argue rebellion. They didn't want a tyrannical government to be able to overrule the citizens, enter Second Amendment (and why hunting arguments are meaningless).

And they think a small group of white men armed with assault rifles could actually take on the US military if it came to that?

[Terabith]

11 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It doesn't seem very well-regulated.

Uh, no.  

 

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Just about to post, wait, what? A handgun is thuggery but an assault weapon (or a hunting weapon, God knows, I don't know my guns!) is not thuggery?

What is the dividing line between thug gun and non thug gun ?

Color of the person holding it.