armed protesters at protest Michigan

[Frances]

Just now, kdsuomi said:

It doesn't matter. At the time they could have, for sure, and it's still in the Constitution. Therefore, it's still a right. 

Of course it’s still a right. But since they couldn’t now, it just seems like an immature attempt to intimidate others and feel much more powerful than they actually are. I understand guns for hunting and protection, although I personally wouldn’t choose either. But taking them to a protest, I can’t understand at all. Are they actually loaded?

[HeartString]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

Are they actually loaded?

The pictures I’ve seen show the guns with magazines in so I would assume yes.  I suppose they could have had empty magazines but that seems unlikely.  

Edited May 1, 2020 by Cnew02

[Frances]

42 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

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

It’s often used here as a way to stir up the base. The president recently tweeted about liberating certain states with Democratic governors, including Michigan, and then added that second amendment rights were in danger (although he may primarily have been focusing on gun rights in Virginia).

Edited May 1, 2020 by Frances

[rebcoola]

Not saying I would do a protest like this but I kind of get it.  

The peoples stance and attitude in that picture don't read aggressive at all to me they are very relaxed.  This is how all the hunting and gun clubs stand around here.  Those are hunting guns here. Lots of people like guns originally designed for military and buy the civilian version.  

While bringing the guns is a sort of intimidation it's not really meant to be a vote this way or else kind of thing.  Just a reminder that this America and we value our individual freedom and we are not above fighting against our own government.  Lots of Americans think the government should be afraid of the people.

Militias are paramilitary groups specifically not run by the government.  They have to follow laws but they have their own trainings.  They are basically clubs.

Edited May 1, 2020 by rebcoola

[wathe]

21 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

And, since this is obviously going back to we hate black people and would obviously be terrified of them, I'm out. Enjoy your echo chamber again.

I don't think so.  I think more about the nuances of privilege.

Edited to strike the word nuance.  Not nuanced at all, really

Edited May 1, 2020 by wathe

[Ausmumof3]

58 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

So you can be criminal and antisocial with a handgun, but not with a different type of gun, because some guns are never used criminally or anti-socially?

I am very confused about thug non-symbolic guns and how they are different to non-thug symbolic guns, when they are all guns capable of doing kinda the same stuff ie shooting things (and people).

 

There’s some logic due to the fact that you can’t easily conceal a long gun versus a handgun.  I mean in Aus you can’t walk down the street with a hunting weapon but you could have a handgun in your bag without anyone knowing.  It would still be illegal but much less likely to be detected.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Ausmumof3
Meant to say illegal not legal !

[wathe]

21 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

It might in general use, but I honestly never hear it. Again, I live in a very anti-gun area. The only time we see visible guns are on cops or people who intend to actually do harm. 

This is also the only time I ever see guns.  And for me, that makes seeing people posturing with guns at a protest more scary, not less.

[Melissa in Australia]

1 minute ago, rebcoola said:

Not saying I would do a protest like this but I kind of get it.  

The peoples stance and attitude in that picture don't read aggressive at all to me they are very relaxed.  This is how all the hunting and gun clubs stand around here.  Those are hunting guns here. Lots of people like guns originally designed for military and buy the civilian version.  

While bringing the guns is a sort of intimidation it's not really meant to be a vote this way or else kind of thing.  Just a reminder that this America and we value our individual freedom and we are not above fighting against our own government.

Militias are paramilitary groups specifically not run by the government.  They have to follow laws but they have their own trainings.  They are basically clubs.

So so glad I live in a country with true freedom and not one where armed thugs go around protesting about their individual freedom

[wathe]

4 minutes ago, rebcoola said:

Not saying I would do a protest like this but I kind of get it.  

The peoples stance and attitude in that picture don't read aggressive at all to me they are very relaxed.  This is how all the hunting and gun clubs stand around here.  Those are hunting guns here. Lots of people like guns originally designed for military and buy the civilian version.  

While bringing the guns is a sort of intimidation it's not really meant to be a vote this way or else kind of thing.  Just a reminder that this America and we value our individual freedom and we are not above fighting against our own government.  Lots of Americans think the government should be afraid of the people.

Militias are paramilitary groups specifically not run by the government.  They have to follow laws but they have their own trainings.  They are basically clubs.

Thank you.  This all feels so foreign to me (well, it literally is I guess.). I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around how any of this is OK.  Seems all about freedom to, at the expense of freedom from.

[Frances]

50 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.

I see them here as supremely ironic. They chose a president, by character and temperament, who couldn’t be less suited to lead in a crisis, and now are protesting that they don’t like what happens when natural consequences of failed leadership occur. They’d be better off spending time reflecting on their own responsibility for the current state of affairs.

[rebcoola]

I think it's interesting that so many would be more comfortable with concealed handguns.   I much prefer open carry I like knowing who is armed.  Maybe that's because  I know how fast they can go from hidden to used.  

[wathe]

7 minutes ago, rebcoola said:

I think it's interesting that so many would be more comfortable with concealed handguns.   I much prefer open carry I like knowing who is armed.  Maybe that's because  I know how fast they can go from hidden to used.  

I'm not comfortable with any guns in this context. 

[rebcoola]

I see well I'm pretty sure any protest from that side of aisle in America has guns at it.  

[wathe]

NYT article links to a twitter photo taken by a senator inside the house, of men with rifles standing on a balcony (viewing gallery?) with the caption  "Directly above me, men with rifles yelling at us. Some of my colleagues who own bullet proof vests are wearing them. I have never appreciated our Sergeants-at-Arms more than today."  I just can't see how this is anything other than intimidation, loud and clear.

Again, it's not my intention to discuss the politics or reason for the protest, but to highlight that a senator, at his place of work, clearly felt intimidated by the presence of firearms at this protest.

Mods, I can delete if this veers too political

Edited May 1, 2020 by wathe

[Ausmumof3]

20 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Hidden, not hidden - I still only want to see them at sports clubs, in the hands of farmers, and other (regulated) professionals!

It's hard to imagine I'd see someone coming down the street with a long gun and think 'oh, nice, peaceful, law abiding chap', but like I said, different cultures.

I agree with you it’s just that’s probably one reason why there is a perceived difference aside from the urban versus rural or race thing.

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, StellaM said:

 

Really? Like, at a climate change rally, people are gonna be bringing these type of guns?

Is it that normal?

There is an antifa group that also carry guns to protests from memory.  I remember showing dh at one point.  Anyway this is probably getting political again.  

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Really? Like, at a climate change rally, people are gonna be bringing these type of guns?

Is it that normal?

Search redneck revolt for more.  They still scare me whatever side of politics they’re on 

[rebcoola]

6 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Really? Like, at a climate change rally, people are gonna be bringing these type of guns?

Is it that normal?

Not that type but their are guns there for sure.  In America I would always assume in a large group someone has a gun.  

Edited May 1, 2020 by rebcoola

[EmseB]

I mean, of course bringing guns to a protest is for intimidation. Of course it makes a statement.

I think the statement being made depends on who gets to carry the guns.

[EmseB]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

I don't understand...I don't think Hong King police (or protesters?) should have been using violence either?

I'm saying one side typically shows up with guns. It isn't usually protesters that I have seen at the two whole protests I've ever attended. In this case it happens to be some 2A dudes (which, incidentally isn't only white guys in this country, but whatever). But open carry is legal. Some see just carrying a rifle as an act of violence in and of itself. I don't agree.

[wathe]

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I'm saying one side typically shows up with guns. It isn't usually protesters that I have seen at the two whole protests I've ever attended. In this case it happens to be some 2A dudes (which, incidentally isn't only white guys in this country, but whatever). But open carry is legal. Some see just carrying a rifle as an act of violence in and of itself. I don't agree.

2A = second amendment?

[wathe]

9 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I'm saying one side typically shows up with guns. It isn't usually protesters that I have seen at the two whole protests I've ever attended. In this case it happens to be some 2A dudes (which, incidentally isn't only white guys in this country, but whatever). But open carry is legal. Some see just carrying a rifle as an act of violence in and of itself. I don't agree.

Of course not only white folks.  But I think it's fair to say mostly white folks.  Definitely mostly white folks carrying weapons at recent protests in news media photos.   And I think certainly white privilege is playing a role in this instance.

[rebcoola]

26 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I wonder if the gun toters put other people off protesting?

Like, if I wanted to protest against the lock down but I didn't want to do it with guns, and hanging threats, would I go? Probably not. 

I wonder if guns make public protest less, and not more, pluralistic?

Just thinking about all the protests I've ever been on, and everyone's there, from little kids to old grannies to your neighbourhood punk...

Honestly depends on who is protesting and what but their are plenty of gun toting grannies and kids in America.  This seems to have been a clear intimidation tactic and be all/ mostly men.  But a protest against gun control would likes have all sorts at it.

Edited May 1, 2020 by rebcoola

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, rebcoola said:

While bringing the guns is a sort of intimidation it's not really meant to be a vote this way or else kind of thing.  Just a reminder that this America and we value our individual freedom and we are not above fighting against our own government.  Lots of Americans think the government should be afraid of the people.

The government IS the people. If people don't like what their elected officials are doing, they can elect someone else. The idea that democratically elected officials should have to live in fear of armed mobs of cosplaying white dudes is a sign of serious societal dysfunction. 

[Ottakee]

3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The government IS the people. If people don't like what their elected officials are doing, they can elect someone else. 

Agree with it or not, what many of these people are protesting is that the elected officials are going beyond the scope of their legal powers currently.   Yes, they can vote to elect someone else, but meanwhile, rights and freedoms are being taken away....and in their view illegally.

 

[wendyroo]

I am an American.  I am a Michigander.

That photo viscerally sickens me.

I do not agree on any level with armed bullies threatening and intimidating legally elected representatives.

[MEmama]

7 hours ago, Melissa in Australia said:

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

As an insider, it is equally baffling and utterly dismaying/terrifying. I 100% agree with your assessment. I’m honestly not sure the country is going to make it much longer. There just isn’t anything that holds us together.

[ktgrok]

 

7 hours 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 what, exactly? Symbolic of their ability to shoot the legislators? Kill the police guarding them? If so, that's the definition of intimidation. 

7 hours 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. 

I have zero issue with them being a militia. They can go practice their drills in a field all darned day long. That's great. But that has nothing to do with showing up to intimidate lawmakers, unless the point was to say that if they don't vote properly they will use their power as a militia to fight them?

7 hours ago, Terabith said:

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.  

Exactly

7 hours ago, StellaM said:

If they wanted symbols, couldn't they have just mocked up copies of the Constitution?

You can get pocket copies cheaply (maybe even free?). 

7 hours 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).

Then they can sue. There are legal remedies. They instead opted to use guns to intimidate and fear of violence to get their way. 

Do we REALLY think that it is democratic and what the constitution had in mind, for lawmakers to be intimidated into voting a certain way for fear of being shot?

7 hours ago, Cnew02 said:

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”.  

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

This. Again, there is NOTHING democratic or American about using the threat of violence to influence voting. 

6 hours ago, StellaM said:

Am I wrong, or is use of the word 'thug' actually a kind of dog whistle?

You are not wrong. 

6 hours ago, StellaM said:

And was the 'tyrants get the rope' sign now being reported as being carried by a protester likewise, just a symbolic threat ?

well, it was a threat, anyway. Since they voted the right way, it can stay symbolic I guess. 

6 hours ago, rebcoola said:

Not saying I would do a protest like this but I kind of get it.  

The peoples stance and attitude in that picture don't read aggressive at all to me they are very relaxed.  This is how all the hunting and gun clubs stand around here.  Those are hunting guns here. Lots of people like guns originally designed for military and buy the civilian version.  

While bringing the guns is a sort of intimidation it's not really meant to be a vote this way or else kind of thing.  Just a reminder that this America and we value our individual freedom and we are not above fighting against our own government.  Lots of Americans think the government should be afraid of the people.

Militias are paramilitary groups specifically not run by the government.  They have to follow laws but they have their own trainings.  They are basically clubs.

Fighting - with guns - against the unarmed legislators IS exactly the threat that says "vote this way or else". That's the intimidation part - it is saying, "we have guns, we are not afraid to fight you if you don't do what we want". 

6 hours ago, rebcoola said:

I think it's interesting that so many would be more comfortable with concealed handguns.   I much prefer open carry I like knowing who is armed.  Maybe that's because  I know how fast they can go from hidden to used.  

A concealed gun would be for personal protection if something happens to go down. This was designed to intimidate. Difference. 

26 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

Agree with it or not, what many of these people are protesting is that the elected officials are going beyond the scope of their legal powers currently.   Yes, they can vote to elect someone else, but meanwhile, rights and freedoms are being taken away....and in their view illegally.

 

Then they can sue. There are legal remedies. 

[ktgrok]

I also find it...confusing....that this is about general concern over government overreach, given that they were wearing hats supporting a President who has actually factually said that he has "total authority" and can do "whatever I want". So forgive me if i doubt their understanding of and concern for the constitution. 

[MEmama]

6 hours ago, Melissa in Australia said:

So so glad I live in a country with true freedom and not one where armed thugs go around protesting about their individual freedom

As a liberal American, I am so, so envious (and truly glad for you).

I am actually thankful that there are (generally)peaceful countries, countries that prioritise national health care and humane standards of living, countries with true leadership and countries that understand that when we all take care of each other we are all better off. I think about countries that exemplify those characteristics often, particularly in America’s darkest hours (um, years). It gives me hope for humanity, that while this country burns, goodness may prevail somewhere.

 

[Hadley]

Here we go again with another Americans are awful thread.  

I am VERY uncomfortable with armed men in a government building.  I have no idea how they could legally be in the building with guns.

However, what they are doing is apparently within the law.  Precisely because I don’t like their behavior is the very reason that we have the 1st and 2nd amendment.  I thank our founding fathers because they ensured that ALL of us could voice our concerns about the government, even those of us who hold unpopular views.  

As a Christian, I believe that sin entered the world in the Garden of Eden.  Fear, anger, and dissent have been in the world much longer than has the United States. Americans don’t have a market on evil, and we certainly don’t have a market on the special kind of evil that is racism.  These threads are so very predictable.

[Joker]

It's ridiculous!

I'm American and I grew up with guns. I also grew up with a healthy respect for those guns as well as respect for my fellow humans. These morons protesting with guns today seem to have no respect for anything and just want to intimidate as many people as possible. I find it sad and scary.

[Soror]

I live in a rural area, everyone here has guns. My husband has used 'scary' guns to hunt with, so he has a use for them. I am strongly opposed to them being used in ANY protest. It is a horrible idea to have people are all up in arms and angry to have guns, no matter what the issue and our elected officials, on both sides shouldn't have to fear for their lives for doing their jobs. I'm sure Trump wouldn't be too keen on a large group of people protesting him while holding guns. I think it muddies the waters for people protesting lock-downs to bring guns, stick to the issue you are protesting, these things are not all the same and I think it only confuses the issue. Guns only serve as an intimidation measure here.

[Pam in CT]

re One Amendment to Bind Them All

8 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

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

This is true.

Also true: A very great many quite passionate 2A adherents are quite comfortable with various  limitations on the right to vote, the right to assemble, the right to protest, the right to criticize through speech, the right to petition elected leaders... all of which are, similarly, enshrined in the Constitution. 

So there is a tension there.

[SKL]

It would be dumb to show up at a protest with an obvious gun, unless it was well-planned and organized in advance by people who are respected by the authorities.

The fact that they let 100 people in the building with their guns suggests to me that this was organized in advance with the authorities involved in the planning.

Normally you can't get into government buildings with a gun or even a knife - they have screening devices at the doors.

[SKL]

And no, I don't find that photo to be scary or intimidating at all.

[regentrude]

I cannot see any reason to carry firearms in a protest other than intimidation. And whoever thinks they are just displaying a "symbol": what kind of people choose as their symbol an implement whose sole purpose is to kill?

Edited May 1, 2020 by regentrude

[Carol in Cal.]

How I feel about this:

To me, it is very unusual.  The only time in my life that I have personally witnessed (live, not on TV) this type of arming was around 2000 when a police officer was killed doing a routine traffic stop, gunned down in his parked car, and the police armed up and fanned out looking for the killer with body armor and machine guns visible.  We saw them on the hillside in town as we were driving to church.  It was extraordinary and very concerning.  Oh wait, no, IIRC there were people looking like that at the Frankfurt airport in the late 80s when I was on a business trip.  They were either American military or German police--not sure which.  Both times I found the very existence of that kind of fire power in the same space with me pretty intimidating, and that was clearly the point.  They were signalling readiness to shoot suddenly and quickly, and not to wound either.  To kill.  

Plus, ever since 9/11 we have to go through major metal detection screening to get in and out of most government buildings locally, so I find it remarkable that this was allowed at all.  I mean, I hesitated to bring knitting to a jury duty appearance last year because I figured they would take away my scissors at the door of the building.  How did these folks get past the door?  Michigan is so different to me.  

So, they look extraordinarily unusual, frightening, and bizarre.

When I read about this incident originally, it honestly did not occur to me to think that they would shoot.  It's sort of a trope in American thought that you have to assert your rights or they will slowly disappear, and so the rights to 'peaceably assemble' and to 'freedom of speech' are asserted fairly routinely in practice.  If Michigan has open carry laws that are so lax that lawful gun owners can carry serious weaponry into a legislative assembly, that was news to me, but it doesn't entirely surprise me that someone would feel the need to assert that right.  I have never lived in a state when gun laws were so lax so it's a bit unfamiliar to me, but in Vermont during the annual two week deer hunting with guns season people looked the other way as hunting rifles casually appeared in trucks in parking lots in a lot of places (employers, malls) where they weren't technically allowed.  And in Wisconsin everybody has guns, it seems, and NRA membership was pretty standard.  I can't imagine armed protests in either of those places, but in the inconceivable event that they did occur, no one would shoot.  

Michigan's situation is pretty weird, from what I know from people who live there.  The governor seems to be on a significant power trip and has given the impression of grabbing control for the sake of control and using the virus as the excuse rather than the reason for her far reaching actions.  It's been really interesting to me to see how riled up people are there by their perception of overreach and literal oppression, and this is even among people who are normally pretty quiet and apolitical.  There is also a significant history of government overreach, incompetence, and even corruption locally in various parts of the state--things like the Flynt water problems (still not fixed!) that are literally poisoning a generation (maybe two of them!), the Detroit misuses of eminent domain, expensive public colleges that don't provide college level instruction, the heart of the national gymnastics sexual harassment scandal (Nasser was at Michigan State U), etc. make people more skeptical of government competence and trustworthiness than in much of the rest of the country.  So while the protests seem extreme and the displays of force unacceptable to me, the government actions are extreme as well, and although I don't favor this type of dangerous protest at all, I think it's important to stand up against government overreach, but it should not have been done with gun carrying.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Carol in Cal.

[MEmama]

This might help clear up the intentions by these “very good people”: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/26/devos-family-michigan-protest-rightwing-donors

[SKL]

Traveling in Central America, you see that all over the city.  Every other doorway has a security guard with a gun that size.  I didn't find it scary there and I don't find it scary here.

[livetoread]

I was surprised to see that guns were allowed in the building, which led me to research other state laws. I found this: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/location-restrictions/

I admit, I’m shocked. And for the life of me, I don’t understand why open carry laws are so much more relaxed in many places than concealed carry.

[mumto2]

Our extended family is all MI based.  Does any of this surprise me, no?  Was it wise, no.  Was it legal......must have been.  Does it scare me......only because of the media hype related to it.
 

Perhaps they deserve some compassion.  They see themselves as losing everything they have worked for because their government refuses to see them as individuals.  A family member almost died last week because things on the news were so hyped and confusing he refused to seek medical care......an ambulance was finally called, still in hospital.  He nearly died.  No serious fear of catching Covid via going to your doctor because the the numbers are so low there..........

Northern MI counties appear to be begging for relief....I saw Grand Traverse County requested loosening formally yesterday.  That is probably the biggest town north of Grand Rapids and the regional go to for medical care etc.  Yes, I know this is the great political divide.
 

I live in a state with a big outbreak far away mile wise from my home. My county has low numbers and apparently nobody to test in their free mobile sites as they are generally empty when we drive by ........something like 3 positives recently on 350 tests.  We will start to loosen while the outbreak area does not.  That might save jobs and businesses.  As a local FL friend who owns a struggling very new small business puts it.....being able to be open with many restrictions has meant ......they made enough last month to cover rent and utilities.  So they will be able to be open for another month.......they might just make it through this.

 

[ktgrok]

59 minutes ago, SKL said:

Traveling in Central America, you see that all over the city.  Every other doorway has a security guard with a gun that size.  I didn't find it scary there and I don't find it scary here.

And why do they have those guns? To shoot them, if they decide they want to stop someone from doing something, right? To kill people with. That makes sense if you are on duty as a security guard - the reason you are there is to be ready to shoot people. A gun makes sense. 

If the reason you are at the capital is to potentially shoot people, a gun makes sense. If the reason you are there is to peacefully protest, a gun does not make sense. Do they take those guns with them to get a haircut? Do they keep it on their person like that at Sunday dinner at their mama's house, leaning it against they table while they eat? Of course not! They are not planning to shoot their mama, nor do they want to intimidate her by displaying it. So why in the capital building?

the ONLY thing that makes sense is intimidation. And for them to claim they are protesting tyranny while standing basically over the shoulder of the people voting with a loaded gun, is so incredibly ironic. (adding in their support of an elected official declaring his authority "total" and you might die of the irony)

34 minutes ago, mumto2 said:

Our extended family is all MI based.  Does any of this surprise me, no?  Was it wise, no.  Was it legal......must have been.  Does it scare me......only because of the media hype related to it.
 

Perhaps they deserve some compassion.  

 

And they'd get it if they showed up looking to say their peace, rather than intimidate with unspoken violence. Well, given the signs some of them had, it was actually written violence as well. 

[ktgrok]

Also, this has nothing to do with support of 2nd ammendment or gun ownership. 

We own multiple guns. We own guns that look like those guns. We own guns that people think shouldn't be legal (and at this point would turn in if there was a buy back or whatever). 

We don't use them to intimidate our legislators, and we have enough respect for the seargeant at arms and law enforcement to not get in their face while carrying them around. 

The reason concealed carry states require you NOT to show your weapon is that it is seen as intimidation. Closed carry acknowledegs that the sight of a weapon, on its own, can be construed as intimidation. So the idea that gun owners wouldn't find that image a show of intimidation is not true. More gun owners live in concealed/closed carry places than open carry. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, OKBud said:

 

They probably do, yes.

Y'all don't know any good ol boys? 😄

I do, but I know their mama's too...and those mamas wouldn't put up with that nonsense. If she's not going to have her gun out at the table, they aren't either, lol. Hat's off, guns put away, lol.

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

And why do they have those guns? To shoot them, if they decide they want to stop someone from doing something, right? To kill people with. That makes sense if you are on duty as a security guard - the reason you are there is to be ready to shoot people. A gun makes sense. 

If the reason you are at the capital is to potentially shoot people, a gun makes sense. If the reason you are there is to peacefully protest, a gun does not make sense. Do they take those guns with them to get a haircut? Do they keep it on their person like that at Sunday dinner at their mama's house, leaning it against they table while they eat? Of course not! They are not planning to shoot their mama, nor do they want to intimidate her by displaying it. So why in the capital building?

the ONLY thing that makes sense is intimidation. And for them to claim they are protesting tyranny while standing basically over the shoulder of the people voting with a loaded gun, is so incredibly ironic.  [deleted political comment!]

No, they [the security guards] have those guns as a deterrant mainly.  Point is, it is not scary to look at (to me) because I know they don't intend to shoot unless they absolutely have to.

Everyone knows the folks in that photo (in the OP) weren't bringing those guns to shoot anyone.  Does anyone have reason to believe they were even loaded?

This conversation is a distraction from the fact that the MI governor has made some bonehead decisions and needs to either get rational or get someone else to do it.  For that reason, it was a bad idea to bring guns - it was a distraction from the key issue affecting MI people's lives right now.

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

And they'd get it [compassion] if they showed up looking to say their peace, rather than intimidate with unspoken violence. ....

This was not the first protest and no, they did not get compassion.  Not saying bringing guns will do that either.  But people need to consider whether there is an objective reason to protest.

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

No, they [the security guards] have those guns as a deterrant mainly.  Point is, it is not scary to look at (to me) because I know they don't intend to shoot unless they absolutely have to.

Everyone knows the folks in that photo (in the OP) weren't bringing those guns to shoot anyone.  Does anyone have reason to believe they were even loaded?

This conversation is a distraction from the fact that the MI governor has made some bonehead decisions and needs to either get rational or get someone else to do it.  For that reason, it was a bad idea to bring guns - it was a distraction from the key issue affecting MI people's lives right now.

Deterrents work as deterrents because there is a threat behind them. If the bad guys thought the security guards were not going to shoot anyone, and their guns were not loaded, they wouldn't be deterrents. They work, because they have an implied threat of being used, if need be. 

That is the same situation in the capital. If the guns were not there to shoot anyone, why were they there? Why carry guns, loaded or otherwise, to a vote at the state capital building? To act as a deterrent? To imply that they would only shoot if need be? And that is that need? If the legislators don't vote their way? If not, then why?

Lots of politicians make bad decisions. There are methods in place to handle that. 

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Deterrents work as deterrents because there is a threat behind them. If the bad guys thought the security guards were not going to shoot anyone, and their guns were not loaded, they wouldn't be deterrents. They work, because they have an implied threat of being used, if need be. 

That is the same situation in the capital. If the guns were not there to shoot anyone, why were they there? Why carry guns, loaded or otherwise, to a vote at the state capital building? To act as a deterrent? To imply that they would only shoot if need be? And that is that need? If the legislators don't vote their way? If not, then why?

Lots of politicians make bad decisions. There are methods in place to handle that. 

Why carry anything at a protest?  To make a point that xyz is important to them.  In this case these guys decided they needed to make a point about gun rights.  They watered down the original point of the protest, but no, I don't believe anyone was intimidated nor that that was the intention.

[ktgrok]

Just now, SKL said:

Why carry anything at a protest?  To make a point that xyz is important to them.  In this case these guys decided they needed to make a point about gun rights.  They watered down the original point of the protest, but no, I don't believe anyone was intimidated nor that that was the intention.

What makes you think the protest was about gun rights? 

And yes, legislators have said they were intimidated. They said it was scary. I can't blame them.