armed protesters at protest Michigan

[MEmama]

21 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.

This is by far the most absurd thing I’ve read today. Smh.

[SKL]

Just now, Ktgrok said:

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. 

I didn't say the protest was about gun rights.  I said some people at the protest decided they needed to make a point about gun rights.  That happens at protests - sometimes people want to put in a plug about their other pet issue.  In this case (and other cases) it can create a distraction that is counterproductive.

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, MEmama said:

This is by far the most absurd thing I’ve read today. Smh.

You too are entitled to your opinion.

[Laurie]

13 hours ago, wathe said:

 

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."

 

You left out what I considered to be the most incredible/bizarre part of the story...the police took their temperatures!!!

This had to be a staged/photo op with the cooperation of both sides.  I would bet money that none of those guns were loaded.  But I don't approve of bringing guns along on this kind of protest. ( I live in Seattle, and it's May Day.  On this day, the police usually won't let the May Day protesters carry anything long like wood to prevent violence and property damage.)  

I can't help it...I find the whole thing crazy,  and not just the people carrying guns into the building.   Men carrying guns into a building...and the police take their temperatures and the journalist writes about how not all the group members practiced social distancing and few were wearing masks!   I'm torn between laughing and crying.  

 

 

[ktgrok]

They tried to enter the legislative chamber, with guns, and anyone is saying that they were not being intimidating???

12 hours 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 think the majority of the legislature already agreed with them.  I see it more as a sign of solidarity against the blatant power grab in our state and the governor’s refusal to even talk to the legislature.  She is digging up some law from 1946 to justify her extended executive power without having to work with them.  Things like knives and other sharp objects tend to be concealed and I don’t know all the rules on concealed carry in Michigan, but it was said on the news that open carry is legal in the state capital.  I took knitting needles on the airplane to England with no problem just last year.

[ktgrok]

6 minutes ago, Mom2mthj said:

I think the majority of the legislature already agreed with them.  I see it more as a sign of solidarity against the blatant power grab in our state and the governor’s refusal to even talk to the legislature.  She is digging up some law from 1946 to justify her extended executive power without having to work with them.  Things like knives and other sharp objects tend to be concealed and I don’t know all the rules on concealed carry in Michigan, but it was said on the news that open carry is legal in the state capital.  I took knitting needles on the airplane to England with no problem just last year.

So they showed up with guns, trying to force their way into the chamber, to say, "good job!"?

they'd be better served to stay home and read up on the definition of tyranny. A governor using the law to justify herself is a tyrant? That the legislators could hold a vote shows that there is no tyranny, just democracy and a balance of power. Let it play out. 

[wendyroo]

32 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.

Can you give me an example of a "bonehead decision" that Gov. Whitmer made?

According to a Fox News poll, between April 18th and 21st, 64% of Michigan voters approved of the way Governor Whitmer was handling the coronavirus situation in Michigan.  Only 32% disapproved.

When asked, "Do you think Governor Whitmer’s stay-at-home order is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or about right?", 57% said about right, with only 33% saying too restrictive and 9% saying not restrictive enough.

Obviously, there is not unanimous consensus, but in a state of nearly 10 million people, that seems improbable.  On the whole, though, both the data, and my personal experience, say that most Michiganders are pleased with the job Whitmer is doing...or, at least, are satisfied enough not to strongly oppose her.  It is only a very, very, very small minority who feel the issue has risen to "march the capital building with assault rifles" level.

[skimomma]

57 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

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.

 

I live in MI.  My family is being significantly financially hurt by the SIP orders.  I live in an area that has very few confirmed cases....and until a few days ago, almost no testing available.   I am not necessarily a fan of our governor.  But I do not believe she is making "bonehead decisions."   She is doing the best she can.  It is definitely NOT in her best interest to do what she has had to do.  These are unchartered waters and I would not expect everyone to do every thing perfectly.  What exactly do you think she needs to do to "get rational?"  Despite the national outrage, our restrictions are not much different than other states.  Our state has been hit hard, harder than most.  Given that, I don't think she has done a poor job.

And FTR, the protests appall most IRL people I personally know in MI.  Even the most conservative people I know who would have liked to see our governor removed from office well before the pandemic hit thinks bringing guns to this protest is sickening. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by skimomma

[Ottakee]

59 minutes ago, Danae said:

 

And yet 57% of people polled who live there approve of how she's handling the crisis and only 37% disapprove. And that with a significant propaganda push against her. Are people "riled up" by their perception of overreach or because they're being deliberately riled up for political reasons?

Edit to add poll link:  https://www.detroitchamber.com/micovidpoll/

But there are other polls from Michigan that show the opposite.

Michigan has a lot of issues right now....and sadly a long history or not protecting it's most vulnerable citizens...poor in Flint, young female gymnasts, etc.

Another thing to realize (and again not saying I agree with the protesters) but they are a lot of the front line workers....those working full time now, many making less than they would staying home, etc.  It is these people....truck drivers, delivery people, grocery store and gas station workers, food service, utility workers, etc that are allowing other people to stay at home and still have food, electricity, and Amazon deliveries.  

[wendyroo]

7 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

But there are other polls from Michigan that show the opposite.

Michigan has a lot of issues right now....and sadly a long history or not protecting it's most vulnerable citizens...poor in Flint, young female gymnasts, etc.

Another thing to realize (and again not saying I agree with the protesters) but they are a lot of the front line workers....those working full time now, many making less than they would staying home, etc.  It is these people....truck drivers, delivery people, grocery store and gas station workers, food service, utility workers, etc that are allowing other people to stay at home and still have food, electricity, and Amazon deliveries.  

Could you show me an example of a poll that shows the opposite.  Since even the Fox News poll showed the majority of Michiganders in favor of Whitmer, I would be interested in seeing a poll that showed significantly different results.

Also, as to the bolded, the original article reported that the armed protesters in the capital building were chanting "Let us work!".  That, along with the fact that they were there protesting mid-day on a Thursday, suggests to me that most of them are not currently working full time in front line jobs.

[Terabith]

3 hours ago, regentrude said:

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?

Well, I mean, Christians.

[ktgrok]

29 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Well, I mean, Christians.

To be fair, it's used as as symbol of dying, and self sacrifice, not killing. 

[Guest]

14 hours 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 

Guns at a protest are never "normal". 

[YaelAldrich]

Can y'all imagine the march over Selma Bridge with MLK, etc all carrying (even unloaded) guns?  I cannot help by falling over in laughter.  Forget dogs and water cannons; it would been a bloodbath.

We all know why they were allowed to do this. 

[Lady Florida.]

14 hours ago, wathe said:

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.

Yep. To me this makes them terrorists, not protesters. Using the threat of violence against civilians to get their way is one definition of terrorism and imo that's what they're doing. 

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, 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.

 

People in the chamber were wearing bullet proof vests (odd choice when their heads were available targets) but you don't think they were intimidated?

[Lady Florida.]

57 minutes ago, YaelAldrich said:

Can y'all imagine the march over Selma Bridge with MLK, etc all carrying (even unloaded) guns?  I cannot help by falling over in laughter.  Forget dogs and water cannons; it would been a bloodbath.

We all know why they were allowed to do this. 

QFT

[SKL]

56 minutes ago, YaelAldrich said:

Can y'all imagine the march over Selma Bridge with MLK, etc all carrying (even unloaded) guns?  I cannot help by falling over in laughter.  Forget dogs and water cannons; it would been a bloodbath.

We all know why they were allowed to do this. 

At least in my city around that time (northern state bordering Michigan), there were protests with the AA protesters carrying guns.  Yes it was controversial, but the mayor participated in the march.

[PeterPan]

5 hours ago, dmmetler said:

Guns at a protest are never "normal". 

Just to point out that that misses the whole logic of WHY they brought the guns. It's a longstanding 2nd amendment viewpoint of an armed populace as a defense against tyranny.

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

At least in my city around that time (northern state bordering Michigan), there were protests with the AA protesters carrying guns.  Yes it was controversial, but the mayor participated in the march.

They literally changed the law in CA to prevent armed protests at the capital after Black Panthers did this in 1967. Ronald Reagan signed the law. Are you serious right now? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sacbee.com/news/local/history/article148667224.html

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Ausmumof3]

28 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Just to point out that that misses the whole logic of WHY they brought the guns. It's a longstanding 2nd amendment viewpoint of an armed populace as a defense against tyranny.

But why guns?  I mean why not mayflowers to show how you guys escaped tyranny or something?

I really think this is a thing you have to be American to get.  

[MercyA]

23 minutes ago, kand said:

As a Christian, I feel very confident Jesus wouldn’t be trying to change hearts and minds by carrying a big gun (or even a little one). We’re supposed to do our best to emulate him, no? There’s nothing Christlike in these people’s actions. None have done so much damage to Christianity as those who have intertwined their politics (and often their guns) with their religion and made Christianity look like a joke that most people want no part of now  😢. 

Pro-life people? Oh, wait.🤔 (Pro-life people: I’m a pro-life person. It’s just that the hypocrisy of claiming to be pro-life while clinging to guns as your most important right is not lost on pretty much anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.)

THANK YOU. 

QFT.

[ktgrok]

39 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Just to point out that that misses the whole logic of WHY they brought the guns. It's a longstanding 2nd amendment viewpoint of an armed populace as a defense against tyranny.

Right. And the REASON an armed populace is a defense against tyranny is that those guns would be used to shoot the tyrants. Which, if they are applying it to this situation, is an implied thereat to shoot these politicians - aka intimidation. 

[PeterPan]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

But why guns?  I mean why not mayflowers to show how you guys escaped tyranny or something?

I really think this is a thing you have to be American to get.  

That's why I was trying to explain it. Yes, it's an american thing. NRA, 2nd amendment, freedom. I thought people were asking *why* so I was trying to explain. 

I guess I don't get what flowers have to do with it. It's about the present, the future, not the past. Freedom is only present as we continue to fight for it. If we don't fight for it and protect it, we LOSE it. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by PeterPan

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

That's why I was trying to explain it. Yes, it's an american thing. NRA, 2nd amendment, freedom. I thought people were asking *why* so I was trying to explain. 

I guess I don't get what flowers have to do with it. It's about the present, the future, not the past. Freedom is only present as we continue to fight for it. If we don't fight for it and protect it, we LOSE it. 

I guess I thought the protest was about constitutional rights in general not second amendment rights so I didn’t get why pick something that specifically relates to the 2nd amendment.  I mean why not models of the mayflower or tea casks for the Boston tea party or something if you’re just after a symbol.  But if it’s a symbol of willingness to fight guns make sense.  But then that is intimidation because it is a statement that we’re willing to use physical violence if necessary.

[Ausmumof3]

5 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

That's why I was trying to explain it. Yes, it's an american thing. NRA, 2nd amendment, freedom. I thought people were asking *why* so I was trying to explain. 

I guess I don't get what flowers have to do with it. It's about the present, the future, not the past. Freedom is only present as we continue to fight for it. If we don't fight for it and protect it, we LOSE it. 

I mean I know about the 2nd amendment thing thanks to dh and this forum.  But it doesn’t make sense to me.  I don’t think it ever will.  I don’t get why this one bit of a constitution that’s presumably got a lot more to it gets so much air time.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I mean I know about the 2nd amendment thing thanks to dh and this forum.  But it doesn’t make sense to me.  I don’t think it ever will.  I don’t get why this one bit of a constitution that’s presumably got a lot more to it gets so much air time.

Because you can’t impose your (increasingly) minority view without violence or the threat thereof.  The ONLY people who can engage in this foolishness without consequence are white men and women.

[Terabith]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

But why guns?  I mean why not mayflowers to show how you guys escaped tyranny or something?

I really think this is a thing you have to be American to get.  

Mayflower folks didn't really escape tyranny either.  I mean, they had a pretty sweet gig going in the Netherlands.  

[ktgrok]

35 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

That's why I was trying to explain it. Yes, it's an american thing. NRA, 2nd amendment, freedom. I thought people were asking *why* so I was trying to explain. 

I guess I don't get what flowers have to do with it. It's about the present, the future, not the past. Freedom is only present as we continue to fight for it. If we don't fight for it and protect it, we LOSE it. 

Fight with words and in the courts, or fight with guns, shooting people?

Are you saying the point of the guns was that they were showing they were willing to stage an armed rebellion if the government doesn't lift restrictions, and actually shoot people over it?

If not, why the guns? 

[hopeallgoeswell]

33 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I mean I know about the 2nd amendment thing thanks to dh and this forum.  But it doesn’t make sense to me.  I don’t think it ever will.  I don’t get why this one bit of a constitution that’s presumably got a lot more to it gets so much air time.

I think that people who live in countries where the government has outlawed guns, or severely restricted types and overall access, and where "the government knows best," culturally cannot understand why most Americans protect the Second Amendment.  If you look through the past 100 years, you'll see dictators who first took away their citizens' right to own meaningful weapons and then killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people. 

Without the Second Amendment, we cannot protect our other liberties defined by the other amendments.  Benjamin Franklin is attributed to having said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."  A republic protects the rights of the individual, as opposed to a democracy where majority, however marginal, rules.  How does one protect their individual rights with flowers or flags or a poster board?  How do I protect my daughters if someone breaks into my house?  Hopefully get to a phone, call the police, and wait for someone else with a gun to protect us?  If my government tries to forcibly take away my liberties, do I ask them politely to go away?  Americans take guns to protests as a symbol, to remind the government officials that they work for the People, not because if the officials don't vote the way the protesters want, shots will be fired.  Ronald Reagan said, "“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”   If American teachers and media are teaching this generation that "guns are bad" and that the government will protect us, I hate to think of what kind of country my grandchildren will grow up in.

 

Edited to add: The saying "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is probably the easiest way to sum 2A up.  You hope you won't have to protect yourself, your family, and your neighbors from a tyrannical government, but you better have the ability to do so if the need arises.

Edited May 2, 2020 by hopeallgoeswell

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

I think that people who live in countries where the government has outlawed guns, or severely restricted types and overall access, and where "the government knows best," culturally cannot understand why most Americans protect the Second Amendment.  If you look through the past 100 years, you'll see dictators who first took away their citizens' right to own meaningful weapons and then killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people. 

Without the Second Amendment, we cannot protect our other liberties defined by the other amendments.  Benjamin Franklin is attributed to having said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."  A republic protects the rights of the individual, as opposed to a democracy where majority, however marginal, rules.  How does one protect their individual rights with flowers or flags or a poster board?  How do I protect my daughters if someone breaks into my house?  Hopefully get to a phone, call the police, and wait for someone else with a gun to protect us?  If my government tries to forcibly take away my liberties, do I ask them politely to go away?  Americans take guns to protests as a symbol, to remind the government officials that they work for the People, not because if the officials don't vote the way the protesters want, shots will be fired.  Ronald Reagan said, "“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”   If American teachers and media are teaching this generation that "guns are bad" and that the government will protect us, I hate to think of what kind of country my grandchildren will grow up in.

Yeah the guns make sense if you’re making the point that you’re willing to use them.  It’s just that previous posters said they weren’t there for intimidation purposes purely symbolic.  Either they’re there to remind the government that you’re willing to fight (intimidation) or they aren’t.

But at this point everyone is still getting to vote and choose representatives and print newspapers so it’s hard to see how anyone’s political freedom is getting taken away.  I mean if most people voted for the people putting restrictions in place presumably most people support that.  If they don’t they can vote next time.  If the vote gets cancelled maybe then it’s time for the militia?  No?

[hopeallgoeswell]

4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

But at this point everyone is still getting to vote and choose representatives and print newspapers so it’s hard to see how anyone’s political freedom is getting taken away.  I mean if most people voted for the people putting restrictions in place presumably most people support that.  If they don’t they can vote next time.  If the vote gets cancelled maybe then it’s time for the militia?  No?

What if over 50% of people vote for homeschooling to be illegal because it is believed to be harmful to children, and if you don't put your kids in government schools, officials will come to take your children away and place them into foster care?  Do I have to wait until the next election to vote them out of office and get new laws in place?

[rebcoola]

4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

But at this point everyone is still getting to vote and choose representatives and print newspapers so it’s hard to see how anyone’s political freedom is getting taken away.  I mean if most people voted for the people putting restrictions in place presumably most people support that.  If they don’t they can vote next time.  If the vote gets cancelled maybe then it’s time for the militia?  No?

The fear is that these powers given because of an emergency will not be so easily taken back.  Who decides when the emergency is over? the very people who have been given power. 

[Ausmumof3]

5 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

What if over 50% of people vote for homeschooling to be illegal because it is believed to be harmful to children, and if you don't put your kids in government schools, officials will come to take your children away and place them into foster care?  Do I have to wait until the next election to vote them out of office and get new laws in place?

But it doesn’t work like that.  You vote for the people who decide the laws.  Plus homeschooling has a less direct effect on the health of other people than an epidemic.  But yes, if for some reason your governors decide homeschooling is illegal you vote against them next time.  You go protest and raise awareness if you want.  Presumably without a gun.  Presumably you don’t threaten them if they don’t change the law.

[Ausmumof3]

5 minutes ago, rebcoola said:

The fear is that these powers given because of an emergency will not be so easily taken back.  Who decides when the emergency is over? the very people who have been given power. 

Well in Aus we have clear guidelines to be met for changing restrictions I think for this reason.  It’s not an open ended handing over of power.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

But it doesn’t work like that.  You vote for the people who decide the laws.  Plus homeschooling has a less direct effect on the health of other people than an epidemic.  But yes, if for some reason your governors decide homeschooling is illegal you vote against them next time.  You go protest and raise awareness if you want.  Presumably without a gun.  Presumably you don’t threaten them if they don’t change the law.

 

EXACTLY. The answer to government overreach is not a gun, it's the vote. It's a principle we've relied on to affect non-violent change since the civil war (in which the same people toting guns now thought they could retain the right to own others by force). And if someone is stupid enough to think their personal weapons are enough to defeat our actual military, well, there's no hope for 'em.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Frances]

18 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

I think that people who live in countries where the government has outlawed guns, or severely restricted types and overall access, and where "the government knows best," culturally cannot understand why most Americans protect the Second Amendment.  If you look through the past 100 years, you'll see dictators who first took away their citizens' right to own meaningful weapons and then killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people. 

Without the Second Amendment, we cannot protect our other liberties defined by the other amendments.  Benjamin Franklin is attributed to having said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."  A republic protects the rights of the individual, as opposed to a democracy where majority, however marginal, rules.  How does one protect their individual rights with flowers or flags or a poster board?  How do I protect my daughters if someone breaks into my house?  Hopefully get to a phone, call the police, and wait for someone else with a gun to protect us?  If my government tries to forcibly take away my liberties, do I ask them politely to go away?  Americans take guns to protests as a symbol, to remind the government officials that they work for the People, not because if the officials don't vote the way the protesters want, shots will be fired.  Ronald Reagan said, "“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”   If American teachers and media are teaching this generation that "guns are bad" and that the government will protect us, I hate to think of what kind of country my grandchildren will grow up in.

 

Edited to add: The saying "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is probably the easiest way to sum 2A up.  You hope you won't have to protect yourself, your family, and your neighbors from a tyrannical government, but you better have the ability to do so if the need arises.

So people really believe they, as civilians, could defeat the US military? I don’t think we need to wait and see what kind of country your grandchildren will grow up in. The fact that the protestors can’t see where the real blame for the prolonged pain in this crisis falls, yet the rest of the world can, means we are already well down the path of no return. A world crisis and no one is looking at the US to lead. They are looking on in horror and shock at how far we’ve fallen.

[Frances]

4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Well in Aus we have clear guidelines to be met for changing restrictions I think for this reason.  It’s not an open ended handing over of power.

It’s also clear here. 

[rebcoola]

Our state has clear guidelines for re-opening.  The thing is the person who has been given special power to do things unilaterally is the one coming up with those benhcmarks and is the sole decider of when we have met them.  I'm not worried because I think their are still plenty of checks and balances on their power. I don't think it's crazy for people to be concerned though.

Edited May 2, 2020 by rebcoola

[Ausmumof3]

3 minutes ago, rebcoola said:

Our state has clear guidelines for re-opening.  The thing is the person who has been given special power to do things unilaterally is the one coming up with those benhcmarks and is the sole decider or when we have met them.  I'm not worried because I think their are still plenty of checks and balances on their power. I don't think it's crazy for people to be concerned though.

I do get the concern about civil liberties in general.  I noticed myself I went from being horrified at what China was doing to approving it in similar circumstances in my own country.  (For example people being quarantined under guard seems like an abuse of power till you have two weeks of seeing how well people respect requests to self isolate at home).

i just can’t imagine guns being an appropriate response at this point.  

Edited May 2, 2020 by Ausmumof3

[Frances]

Just now, rebcoola said:

Our state has clear guidelines for re-opening.  The thing is the person who has been given special power to do things unilaterally is the one coming up with those benhcmarks and is the sole decider or when we have met them.  I'm not worried because I think their are still plenty of checks and balances on their power. I don't think it's crazy for people to be concerned though.

So your governor does not have an advisory group for the crisis? He or she is making all decisions on their own? Are they a public health or medical professional? And why would any governor want to prolong economic pain any longer than necessary? What would be the point?

[rebcoola]

Yes they have advisors but they are advisors but the actual decision is all on the governor.   In the last phase before normal presumably the economy would be running pretty well but he would retain extra emergency powers to make decisions without getting the legislature involved.

[Sneezyone]

AGAIN...a Governor's term is, MAX, four years. Persecuted groups have survived the last four years of chief executive insanity without resorting to guns in the capitol rotunda. There is no excuse for this. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sneezyone

[PeterPan]

33 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yeah the guns make sense if you’re making the point that you’re willing to use them.  It’s just that previous posters said they weren’t there for intimidation purposes purely symbolic.  Either they’re there to remind the government that you’re willing to fight (intimidation) or they aren’t.

But at this point everyone is still getting to vote and choose representatives and print newspapers so it’s hard to see how anyone’s political freedom is getting taken away.  I mean if most people voted for the people putting restrictions in place presumably most people support that.  If they don’t they can vote next time.  If the vote gets cancelled maybe then it’s time for the militia?  No?

Freedom of speech *is* being taken away. Right now youtube is censoring, removing videos. Facebook is censoring. These are major ways people communicate and disseminate ideas. I deleted my FB and messenger from my phone. FB is collecting data for political purposes, trying to help them "track" our movements, so they're gone from my phone.

Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, life/liberty/pursuit of happiness, and a gov't of/by/for the people. These are very serious things here and people feel like they were won and fought with blood and are worth fighting for and protecting. And the anti-gun, stop whining because gov't isn't really out to control you movement is telling people they know best and people are rising up saying WE are going to have to decide that. Nobody voted on Fauci. 

From an american viewpoint, freedom is lost incrementally, not all at once, so you have to be vigilant. 

I'm not saying you have to *agree*. I'm just saying if you wanted to *understand* those are the reasons.

And, fwiw, Sean Hannity (very pro 2nd amendment) was on Fox News tonight urging people to use caution with their guns, not to take them into state buildings, not to be provocative and have potential problems. And at the same time, he listed all the cities that are going to have protests, so it's not like he's anti protest. But even people for them are saying be cautious, yes.

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I do get the concern about civil liberties in general.  I noticed myself I went from being horrified at what China was doing to approving it in similar circumstances in my own country.  (For example people being quarantined under guard seems like an abuse of power till you have two weeks of seeing how well people respect requests to self isolate at home).

i just can’t imagine guns being an appropriate response at this point.  

 

It's NOT an appropriate response. It's NEVER been an appropriate response. It only feels like one when you're on the losing end of an argument. I can both appreciate the appeal of force and recognize the stupidity of it. A certain segment of wypipo is seriously on the verge of losing their damned minds, much like the zeitgeist before the OKC bombing.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Freedom of speech *is* being taken away. Right now youtube is censoring, removing videos. Facebook is censoring. These are major ways people communicate and disseminate ideas. I deleted my FB and messenger from my phone. FB is collecting data for political purposes, trying to help them "track" our movements, so they're gone from my phone.

Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, life/liberty/pursuit of happiness, and a gov't of/by/for the people. These are very serious things here and people feel like they were won and fought with blood and are worth fighting for and protecting. And the anti-gun, stop whining because gov't isn't really out to control you movement is telling people they know best and people are rising up saying WE are going to have to decide that. Nobody voted on Fauci. 

From an american viewpoint, freedom is lost incrementally, not all at once, so you have to be vigilant. 

I'm not saying you have to *agree*. I'm just saying if you wanted to *understand* those are the reasons.

And, fwiw, Sean Hannity (very pro 2nd amendment) was on Fox News tonight urging people to use caution with their guns, not to take them into state buildings, not to be provocative and have potential problems. And at the same time, he listed all the cities that are going to have protests, so it's not like he's anti protest. But even people for them are saying be cautious, yes.

 

FOX is afraid of the liability involved in inciting madness, not because of altruism, principle, or scruples. Private companies have ALWAYS and will ALWAYS have the ability to censor/restrict their content. Civics...it's fundamental.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

Freedom of speech *is* being taken away. Right now youtube is censoring, removing videos. Facebook is censoring. These are major ways people communicate and disseminate ideas. I deleted my FB and messenger from my phone. FB is collecting data for political purposes, trying to help them "track" our movements, so they're gone from my phone.

Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, life/liberty/pursuit of happiness, and a gov't of/by/for the people. These are very serious things here and people feel like they were won and fought with blood and are worth fighting for and protecting. And the anti-gun, stop whining because gov't isn't really out to control you movement is telling people they know best and people are rising up saying WE are going to have to decide that. Nobody voted on Fauci. 

From an american viewpoint, freedom is lost incrementally, not all at once, so you have to be vigilant. 

I'm not saying you have to *agree*. I'm just saying if you wanted to *understand* those are the reasons.

And, fwiw, Sean Hannity (very pro 2nd amendment) was on Fox News tonight urging people to use caution with their guns, not to take them into state buildings, not to be provocative and have potential problems. And at the same time, he listed all the cities that are going to have protests, so it's not like he's anti protest. But even people for them are saying be cautious, yes.

Good on Sean hannity then.  
 

probably loaded question but are YouTube and Facebook being made to censor by government or are they choosing to censor?  I’m not saying that’s not an issue.  Twitter were censoring somewhat heavy handedly early in the outbreak as well.  But it doesn’t point to government based oppression unless the gov are forcing censorship.

[PeterPan]

9 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

probably loaded question but are YouTube and Facebook being made to censor by government or are they choosing to censor?  I’m not saying that’s not an issue.  Twitter were censoring somewhat heavy handedly early in the outbreak as well.  But it doesn’t point to government based oppression unless the gov are forcing censorship.

That's not quite how american politics works. Big money, influential people, people who set agendas behind the scenes. You've got businesses that now control much of the flow of information in the country, and they're wanting to censor, which is the implementation of democrat political agendas more akin to what we expect of China than our american freedom of speech. And it's something they've done over and over the last few years, with political censorship as well.

So no it's not going to be "government" oppression or censorship or whatever. 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

That's not quite how american politics works. Big money, influential people, people who set agendas behind the scenes. You've got businesses that now control much of the flow of information in the country, and they're wanting to censor, which is the implementation of democrat political agendas more akin to what we expect of China than our american freedom of speech. And it's something they've done over and over the last few years, with political censorship as well.

So no it's not going to be "government" oppression or censorship or whatever. 

 

Government "oppression or censorship or whatever" is the only thing the Constitution protects against.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sneezyone