armed protesters at protest Michigan

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute 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. 

Well yes I agree with you big corporations control and Facebook censoring is an issue.  Not having decent limits on political donations etc although I don’t know the ins and outs.  But I don’t think it’s one to be solved by protests against the government if the government isn’t the problem?  Do we want to change legislation to force Facebook YouTube and Twitter to allow any information on their platform people choose to post?  I don’t know.  It seems equally problematic for government to force a privately owned platform to publish what they don’t want to publish.  
 

but that is probably way outside the scope of this thread.  I don’t mind talking about Facebook censorship but it’s probably a while spin off topic of its own.

[Frances]

23 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.

I honestly don’t understand why anyone would have Facebook and willingly give them so much data. But they are not the government. they are a private company and can do whatever they want, as long as it is legal, to maximize their profits. At the end of the day, that’s all they care about. Money. So boycott them.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Well yes I agree with you big corporations control and Facebook censoring is an issue.  Not having decent limits on political donations etc although I don’t know the ins and outs.  But I don’t think it’s one to be solved by protests against the government if the government isn’t the problem?  Do we want to change legislation to force Facebook YouTube and Twitter to allow any information on their platform people choose to post?  I don’t know.  It seems equally problematic for government to force a privately owned platform to publish what they don’t want to publish.  
 

but that is probably way outside the scope of this thread.  I don’t mind talking about Facebook censorship but it’s probably a while spin off topic of its own.

 

You can try but I wouldn't bother. The wypipo persecution complex is in full effect. I give it 2 years into a new administration before we see another right wing, domestic terror attack in the US. The conditions are ripe. The fire's been stoked. These people are ready to blow.

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

You can try but I wouldn't bother. The wypipo persecution complex is in full effect. I give it 2 years into a new administration before we see another right wing, domestic terror attack in the US. The conditions are ripe. The fire's been stoked. These people are ready to blow.

Sorry I don’t know what wypipo means?

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Sorry I don’t know what wypipo means?

 

Black Twitter speak for white people. This whole situation is eerily reminiscent of the Clinton administration pre-Oklahoma City. This is not going to end well.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sneezyone

[TCB]

15 hours 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.

 

I’m kind of unclear which rights they are talking about. If you can’t buy seeds in some stores which right exactly is being violated. I get that they are being told they shouldn’t or can’t do all the things they want to, but not clear on which right that is.

[KungFuPanda]

22 hours 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?)

I don't know how this isn't some form of brandishing.  They're holding those weapons in a ready position so that they could be used quickly.  This is how you'd walk with them while hunting and looking for something to shoot. I just want to rewind the whole thing.  Why aren't they in cases or strapped to their backs?  Why didn't they leave the magazines at home? Did they leave the ammo at home?  Why do they even own assault rifles?  Are people really hunting game with assault rifles these days?  Why on earth would anyone take rifles to a peaceful protest?  Their intent is absolutely to intimidate and they deliberately chose to look that way.

 

22 hours ago, Frances said:

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

To be intimidating dicks.  It's posturing and there are pockets of the country where this behavior is normalized.

23 hours ago, wathe said:

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.

It is absolutely meant to be a threatening display.  There is no other purpose.  The laws in this country vary by state and they have not all caught up with weapons technology.

21 hours 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 ?

21 hours 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.

I would bet money that every one of those guys owns at least one handgun.  If it's legal in MI, they're probably carrying those too.  

21 hours ago, StellaM said:

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

It is, but not everyone truly gets that.

20 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

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

Is it that normal?

None of these guys are attending the climatae change rally.

I grew up in a very gun-positive household.  Guns were kept locked, children were taught to shoot, and gun safety was a course every 8th grader took.  My dad had a collection of rifles for hunting and he filled our freezer with those guns and those skills.  I also served in the military.  I am as baffled by that photo as anyone.  I can't believe there are so many assault rifles in the hands of civilians.  I can't believe it's legal anywhere to converge with these weapons en masse on a government building.  I can't believe THIS MANY people think this is a good idea.  I've met responsible gun owners and I've met gun nuts and there is a difference.  I wouldn't be shocked to learn this protest was heavily balanced toward the gun nut cohort.

[Ausmumof3]

Not sure where else to post this but Cal beach protests today

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/orange-county-beaches-stay-closed-after-judge-blocks-request-override-n1198331

[Hadley]

3 hours 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  😢. 

 

Just to be clear, I think that your comment is based on a quote of mine taken out of context.  I do not assume that this was intentional.

However, nowhere did I state that these protesters were acting as Christians.  I have no idea about their beliefs!  I said that I believe that sin is worldwide and that I do support their rights to stand for whatever they wish.

[TCB]

3 hours 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.  

You do, and even though I understand that, I still don’t get it.

[TCB]

2 hours 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. 

I guess I just really don’t understand this terrible fear that some Americans appear to live under constantly, that their government is going to suddenly turn tyrannical and make them stay in their houses or not let them buy seeds for all time, or some of the other things being restricted. A lot of other people in other countries are seeing the reasons for the restrictions and complying for the most part. Is the government in the US so terrible or are they being paranoid? On what past experience are they basing this. I get that Americans came to America to escape tyranny but have they really experienced such tyranny from their government that it warrants such fear?

[Sneezyone]

For once, FOR ONCE, I wish people who flaunt these 2A rights would acknowledge that they can do so primarily because of the color of their skin. Others have had not only their rights restricted but their lives taken for lesser (or no) offenses. Shopping, playing, walking...no protest required, their lives were forfeit. The same people excusing this behavior excused  those unconscionable deaths as 'reasonable' due to fear but the legislature shouldn't have felt intimidated? GTFOH. Christians, non-Christians it matters not. Power is the primary currency and those who have it will seek to keep it at all costs. These individuals entered a state capitol building intent on imposing their will through intimidation (if possible) and force (if necessary). We cannot ignore the ramping up of anti-social, anti-democratic behavior occurring with the tacit approval of media and political leaders. This will not end well.

[Wheres Toto]

4 hours 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.  

 

2 hours 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 know a lot of American's that don't get it.

[Terabith]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

For once, FOR ONCE, I wish people who flaunt these 2A rights would acknowledge that they can do so primarily because of the color of their skin. Others have had not only their rights restricted but their lives taken for lesser (or no) offenses. Shopping, playing, walking...no protest required, their lives were forfeit. The same people excusing this behavior excused  those unconscionable deaths as 'reasonable' due to fear but the legislature shouldn't have felt intimidated? GTFOH. Christians, non-Christians it matters not. Power is the primary currency and those who have it will seek to keep it at all costs. These individuals entered a state capitol building intent on imposing their will through intimidation (if possible) and force (if necessary). We cannot ignore the ramping up of anti-social, anti-democratic behavior occurring with the tacit approval of media and political leaders. This will not end well.

Yup.  A black man was hunted and run down in a truck by multiple men with guns because he dared to jog through their neighborhood.  The men who executed him were not arrested.  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-man-shot-dead-while-jogging-southeast-georgia-two-months-n1196621

[rebcoola]

I would say most of the fears are irrational I think it also a lot easier to rail against the government than anything else.

[KungFuPanda]

13 hours ago, MEmama said:

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

These armed protestors would never be allowed to protest in her neighborhood.

11 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

They probably do, yes.

Y'all don't know any good ol boys? 😄

I know more than my fair share of good ol boys and nobody is packing up assault rifles for Sunday dinner with grandma.  

1 hour 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.

First off, Fauci is my boyfriend.  I called dibs weeks ago.  Secondly, how would anyone go about voting for a scientist?? His position is not an elected office.  Nobody voted for Trump's daughter or son-in-law either, but there they are.  The president chooses his own advisors, so everyone who voted for the president empowered him with choosing his team.

[MercyA]

Here's my take on it. I'm a theologically conservative Christian and I am not anti-gun.

If you are going to pick up and brandish a gun, you'd better have a damn good reason for it. As in, someone's ACTUAL LIFE is at stake. Not because you're upset about taxation without representation. Not because your country wants another country's oil. Not because you've had to stay home for 6 weeks because, you know, it helps fewer vulnerable people die.

These people need to get a grip. 

[Lady Florida.]

2 hours 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. 

Regardless of whether these are major ways of communicating, this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right that says the government can't infringe on that right (though there are limits as SCOTUS has ruled more than once). Facebook and Google, who owns YouTube, are not the government. They have the right to decide what they will allow, and that doesn't have anything to do with your or my freedom of speech. 

[Corraleno]

5 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

 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.” 

Reagan gave that speech in 1964 and he was warning Americans about the dangers of Communism and other international threats to democracy. He was not talking about random groups of idiots in camo costumes threatening to kill fellow Americans because their democratically elected officials won't let them do whatever they want. Reagan was talking about defending democracy, not overthrowing it.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Corraleno

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, TCB said:

I guess I just really don’t understand this terrible fear that some Americans appear to live under constantly, that their government is going to suddenly turn tyrannical and make them stay in their houses or not let them buy seeds for all time, or some of the other things being restricted. A lot of other people in other countries are seeing the reasons for the restrictions and complying for the most part. Is the government in the US so terrible or are they being paranoid? On what past experience are they basing this. I get that Americans came to America to escape tyranny but have they really experienced such tyranny from their government that it warrants such fear?

Fear is a tool that's used to control them, but they can't see it. That's the ultimate irony — all these tough guys waving guns to prove how powerful and independent and in control they are, doing the bidding of the people who blow dog whistles to which they respond in the most basic Pavlovian way. If you don't want people thinking too hard about whether decent pay, decent healthcare, affordable education, better infrastructure, etc., might actually improve their lives, just tell them that those things equal Commie Socialism and if you accept those things the next step is to take your guns and all your "freedoms."  And without your guns, all those other people you hate (who mostly happen to be brown) can steal your stuff! So keep fighting for crappy pay and no healthcare and unaffordable education and crumbling infrastructure and tax breaks for billionaires, so you can keep your guns and defend the stuff you can barely afford while you're two paychecks from broke, while the dog-whistlers laugh their asses off and count their money.

[Pawz4me]

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Fear is a tool that's used to control them, but they can't see it. That's the ultimate irony — all these tough guys waving guns to prove how powerful and independent and in control they are, doing the bidding of the people who blow dog whistles to which they respond in the most basic Pavlovian way. If you don't want people thinking too hard about whether decent pay, decent healthcare, affordable education, better infrastructure, etc., might actually improve their lives, just tell them that those things equal Commie Socialism and if you accept those things the next step is to take your guns and all your "freedoms."  And without your guns, all those other people you hate (who mostly happen to be brown) can steal your stuff! So keep fighting for crappy pay and no healthcare and unaffordable education and crumbling infrastructure and tax breaks for billionaires, so you can keep your guns and defend the stuff you can barely afford while you're two paychecks from broke, while the dog-whistlers laugh their asses off and count their money.

Yes. And they're the ones who call other people sheeple.

It boggles the mind.

[MEmama]

6 hours ago, TCB said:

I guess I just really don’t understand this terrible fear that some Americans appear to live under constantly, that their government is going to suddenly turn tyrannical and make them stay in their houses or not let them buy seeds for all time, or some of the other things being restricted. A lot of other people in other countries are seeing the reasons for the restrictions and complying for the most part. Is the government in the US so terrible or are they being paranoid? On what past experience are they basing this. I get that Americans came to America to escape tyranny but have they really experienced such tyranny from their government that it warrants such fear?

I don’t understand how this group of Americans so fearful of tyranny can’t recognize it when the person they vote for LITERALLY declares his “authority is total”. 
Perhaps this is why the prez also LITERALLY said he likes the “poorly educated”. *Before* they voted for him. 

Tyranny may indeed be a threat to this country, but it’s not coming from the medical field, career infectious disease experts, or governors working their hardest on keeping their citizens safe from a worldwide pandemic. Pay attention to what’s going on behind the scenes, people.

[PeterPan]

8 hours ago, kand said:

It is self-protective for them to be removing harmful, false information being spread across their platform.

So youtube removed a press conference by actual practicing ER doctors. Not "harmful misinformation" but just a different viewpoint.

6 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right that says the government can't infringe on that right (though there are limits as SCOTUS has ruled more than once). Facebook and Google, who owns YouTube, are not the government. They have the right to decide what they will allow, and that doesn't have anything to do with your or my freedom of speech. 

I think that's the discussion we as a people, as consumers, have to have. If we hang here on WTM and SWB redacts/removes something, we say it's her board, her liability, her place, go somewhere else if you don't like it. I think the public *perception* is of youtube/FB as public forums where they *expected* freedom. So I agree with you, that's what is going on is the control of a private entity with very little method of competition. 

[Ausmumof3]

7 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

So youtube removed a press conference by actual practicing ER doctors. Not "harmful misinformation" but just a different viewpoint.

I think that's the discussion we as a people, as consumers, have to have. If we hang here on WTM and SWB redacts/removes something, we say it's her board, her liability, her place, go somewhere else if you don't like it. I think the public *perception* is of youtube/FB as public forums where they *expected* freedom. So I agree with you, that's what is going on is the control of a private entity with very little method of competition. 

If you mean the one by the Bakersfield doctors (?) dr Erickson I think - that was pretty bad.  There are lots of good rundowns on why what they said was wrong.  And it’s hard to see how they didn’t know given they are qualified doctors meaning it’s hard not to come to the conclusion they were trying to mislead.  Basically they took the tests from their emergency care clinic (meaning the data was filtered by those who were sick enough to seek and get coronavirus testing) and extrapolated that to the entire population.  This is not a random sample and can’t be used to draw conclusions like that.  And that’s just the start of the issues with that video.
 

I don’t particularly think YouTube and Facebook pulling the video was the right decision because it just feeds into the whole conspiracy theory thing of “the truths been hidden from us”.  But given that many people are just watching a video like that and making potentially life threatening decisions without doing any further research it’s hard to know why the right answer is.  I lean more toward - fight misinformation with lots of good information.  However there’s a fairly decent percentage of the population who don’t have the time or energy or willingness to look deeper and will just go - hey two doctors said we don’t need to lockdown and I’m sick of locking down so let’s go protest.

I think the challenge with Facebook etc is that we see them as a medium to facilitate our interactions not one that filters stuff.  But they’ve shown increasingly that they are filtering information and it would be wise for people to use multiple sources.  
 

ironically with Twitter they censored the other way at the beginning of the outbreak - filtering a lot of sites making things worse than the offical figures from China . So the censoring is going both ways.  People would be wise to think carefully and check any and every claim from every source and not take things on face value.  This is particularly easy with Coronavirus because medical and scientific journals and many news outlets have agreed to make all the information freely available rather than something we need to pay for.  

[Ausmumof3]

Lastly there are alternative platforms.  Facebook bans animal sales on their site . I totally understand why they do that but to be honest for reputable chicken breeders it’s a total pain trying to track people who will sell.  However many of the groups just set up a shadow group on other forums for that so it works ok.  I’m not comfortable at this point with the government forcing a private entity to publish information that goes against their ethical standards any more than I’m comfortable with them forcing them not to share information.

[Ausmumof3]

This from the giant Wuhan thread is a summary of the issues with the doctors video 

http://blog.deonandan.com/wordpress/2020/04/covid19-lets-talk-about-the-bakersfield-duo.html?fbclid=IwAR15wu2Go9saqq1-rK5YcauoEO49HrC0gpsiAPMJ2tYsxaBswgudfAmQ1w0

[KungFuPanda]

9 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Fear is a tool that's used to control them, but they can't see it. That's the ultimate irony — all these tough guys waving guns to prove how powerful and independent and in control they are, doing the bidding of the people who blow dog whistles to which they respond in the most basic Pavlovian way. If you don't want people thinking too hard about whether decent pay, decent healthcare, affordable education, better infrastructure, etc., might actually improve their lives, just tell them that those things equal Commie Socialism and if you accept those things the next step is to take your guns and all your "freedoms."  And without your guns, all those other people you hate (who mostly happen to be brown) can steal your stuff! So keep fighting for crappy pay and no healthcare and unaffordable education and crumbling infrastructure and tax breaks for billionaires, so you can keep your guns and defend the stuff you can barely afford while you're two paychecks from broke, while the dog-whistlers laugh their asses off and count their money.

 

I don't understand the whole "I hate evil socialism but you'd BETTER open the schools" mentality.  It's weird.

[Ottakee]

11 hours ago, TCB said:

I guess I just really don’t understand this terrible fear that some Americans appear to live under constantly, that their government is going to suddenly turn tyrannical and make them stay in their houses or not let them buy seeds for all time, or some of the other things being restricted. A lot of other people in other countries are seeing the reasons for the restrictions and complying for the most part. Is the government in the US so terrible or are they being paranoid? On what past experience are they basing this. I get that Americans came to America to escape tyranny but have they really experienced such tyranny from their government that it warrants such fear?

Not the group that did this protest, but ask Native Americans.   In less than 200 years their nations were decimated, people forced to relocate, way of life removed, government treaty promises broken, etc.  

My late MIL and her siblings were all removed from their parents and sent to boarding schools to "civilize" them....and that wasn't that long ago here in Michigan.

The tribe is still fighting to re-establish what was supposed to be there by the treaties that were signed.  Many Native tribes are still fighting for their hunting and fishing rights.

Again, not the group protesting, but still very real in the lives of many I know.

[Lady Florida.]

11 hours ago, TCB said:

 I get that Americans came to America to escape tyranny but have they really experienced such tyranny from their government that it warrants such fear?

The thing is, they didn't come to escape tyranny (although many recent immigrants did). Originally people came here to either practice their own version of religion, to make money, or to work off debts. Those who came for religious reasons didn't want everyone to worship as they pleased. They wanted everyone to worship their way, so the whole freedom of religion thing wasn't part of the first settlers' mindset. That came later. Many of the Virginia area settlers came in the hope of getting rich in the tobacco business. The Georgia colony was first proposed by James Oglethorpe by people who were poor and/or debt ridden as a way to get them out of London.

We Americans have been sold a version of our history that didn't exist. We insist countries like Japan and Germany own shameful parts of their past yet we want to pretend our shameful parts don't exist and instead teach a mythical history of the U.S.

[MEmama]

34 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

The thing is, they didn't come to escape tyranny (although many recent immigrants did). Originally people came here to either practice their own version of religion, to make money, or to work off debts. Those who came for religious reasons didn't want everyone to worship as they pleased. They wanted everyone to worship their way, so the whole freedom of religion thing wasn't part of the first settlers' mindset. That came later. Many of the Virginia area settlers came in the hope of getting rich in the tobacco business. The Georgia colony was first proposed by James Oglethorpe by people who were poor and/or debt ridden as a way to get them out of London.

We Americans have been sold a version of our history that didn't exist. We insist countries like Japan and Germany own shameful parts of their past yet we want to pretend our shameful parts don't exist and instead teach a mythical history of the U.S.

THIS X1000

[rebcoola]

I don't think they believe they can win a normal war against the US military.  I think they can put up enough fight to cause some real problems.  These groups honestly don't just have guns they have all sorts of bombs, munitions even old tanks and things. They also probably believe they will be joined by deserters if it ever comes to that.

[TCB]

1 hour ago, Ottakee said:

Not the group that did this protest, but ask Native Americans.   In less than 200 years their nations were decimated, people forced to relocate, way of life removed, government treaty promises broken, etc.  

My late MIL and her siblings were all removed from their parents and sent to boarding schools to "civilize" them....and that wasn't that long ago here in Michigan.

The tribe is still fighting to re-establish what was supposed to be there by the treaties that were signed.  Many Native tribes are still fighting for their hunting and fishing rights.

Again, not the group protesting, but still very real in the lives of many I know.

This is very interesting. I can see how Native American people have that history that would make them cautious. Do you think that other Americans are tuned into that history then, and this is what makes them fearful of government tyranny? 

22 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

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

To be fair, it was a Roman means of execution.

[ktgrok]

15 hours ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

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. 

that makes ZERO sense. If you want a symbol to remind them they work for the people, bring your tax return, showing you pay their salary, or a sample ballot, reminding them you vote them into or out of office. Those things are about who they work for. 

Guns are to remind them you are willing to use violence. 

15 hours 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?

Um, yes? Unless the law is unconstitutional, in which case you file a lawsuit. That is the how our democracy works. Are you suggesting that when people don't like a law, or politician, that instead of working through the systems put in place, they should start shooting people? That's called anarchy. 

15 hours 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. 

And at that point, if that happens. deal with it. But you know, people said that Obama would declare himself king and not step down after his second term. Some were VERY scared of that. Thinking something doesn't make it true, and isn't a reason to go around intimidating people with weapons. 

also, it is REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to even PRETEND that this is about abuse of power when the people protesting are wearing the logo of a man who declared his power total, and said he can do whatever he wants. If they were actually concerned about people letting power go to their head, they'd take those darned hats off. 

14 hours 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 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.

Concern doesn't equal trying to force your way into the chambers where the vote is being held, with guns. 

14 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Freedom of speech *is* being taken away. Right now youtube is censoring, removing videos. Facebook is censoring.

You have ZERO constitutional right to youtube or facebook. Freedom of speech means the GOVERNMENT can't limit your speech (other than in certain ways deemed constitutional). It has NOTHING to do with private companies. Nada. Zip. 

For people to talk about how they are worried about government overreach, then to say that government should step in and make youtube or facebook do stuff, is insanity. Y'all want the free market, this is the free market! Y'all want less regulation, until a company doesn't do things the way you want, then you want them regulated?

Facebook can control what is posted on it the same way you can decide what TV shows to allow in your own home. 

12 hours ago, MercyA said:

Here's my take on it. I'm a theologically conservative Christian and I am not anti-gun.

If you are going to pick up and brandish a gun, you'd better have a damn good reason for it.

Yup. You don't pick up a weapon if you are not willing to use it. That is gun safety 101. Straight from the NRA. 

11 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Reagan gave that speech in 1964 and he was warning Americans about the dangers of Communism and other international threats to democracy. He was not talking about random groups of idiots in camo costumes threatening to kill fellow Americans because their democratically elected officials won't let them do whatever they want. Reagan was talking about defending democracy, not overthrowing it.

 

That people think a legislative body voting = tyranny, but showing up and intimidating them during the vote with guns = democracy may be the biggest indictment of our pubic education system yet. 

1 hour ago, KungFuPanda said:

 

I don't understand the whole "I hate evil socialism but you'd BETTER open the schools" mentality.  It's weird.

LOL, well yeah. They hate socialism except for schools, roads, police departments, fire departments, social security, etc. 

6 minutes ago, Mom2mthj said:

To be fair, it was a Roman means of execution.

And f someone was using it from the Roman point of view, it would be a symbol of killing. If you are using it from the POV of the victim, less so. But yeah, either way, it's a grisly symbol. 

[Sneezyone]

28 minutes ago, TCB said:

This is very interesting. I can see how Native American people have that history that would make them cautious. Do you think that other Americans are tuned into that history then, and this is what makes them fearful of government tyranny? 

Pshaw. The people protesting like this will coopt all kinds of stories to justify themselves but if native people or other groups arm themselves in protest they are further decimated using legal and physical means. We do not have a history of armed minority groups being able to protest without consequence. That’s not a thing. The people out there protesting don’t know from tyranny. They are, in fact, the tyrants.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Ottakee said:

Not the group that did this protest, but ask Native Americans.   In less than 200 years their nations were decimated, people forced to relocate, way of life removed, government treaty promises broken, etc.  

My late MIL and her siblings were all removed from their parents and sent to boarding schools to "civilize" them....and that wasn't that long ago here in Michigan.

The tribe is still fighting to re-establish what was supposed to be there by the treaties that were signed.  Many Native tribes are still fighting for their hunting and fishing rights.

Again, not the group protesting, but still very real in the lives of many I know.

When unarmed Native Americans peacefully protested having their water poisoned, they were tear-gassed, shot with water cannons, and arrested. Black men kneeling to protest the murder of unarmed black men and boys were called sons of bitches who should be fired. But white guys with assault rifles can storm the state capital and scream in the faces of police, and nothing happens to them.

A significant segment of the people in these militias are associated with white nationalist groups. They are not the "oppressed" in this country, they are the oppressors. The America they want does not include "freedoms" for black and brown and Native Americans. Using Native Americans as an example of why white people fear tyranny makes no sense.

[ktgrok]

32 minutes ago, TCB said:

This is very interesting. I can see how Native American people have that history that would make them cautious. Do you think that other Americans are tuned into that history then, and this is what makes them fearful of government tyranny? 

I think a lot of Americans don't know what tyranny even is. They think it means the government doing anything they don't like. Even in this thread it was implied that a law restricting homeschooling would be tyranny, and possibly should be met with a violent overthrow. Versus, you know, writing your congresspeople, filing a lawsuit, or just voting them out. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Ottakee said:

Not the group that did this protest, but ask Native Americans.   In less than 200 years their nations were decimated, people forced to relocate, way of life removed, government treaty promises broken, etc.  

My late MIL and her siblings were all removed from their parents and sent to boarding schools to "civilize" them....and that wasn't that long ago here in Michigan.

The tribe is still fighting to re-establish what was supposed to be there by the treaties that were signed.  Many Native tribes are still fighting for their hunting and fishing rights.

Again, not the group protesting, but still very real in the lives of many I know.

This is completely understandable. The atrocities inflicted on NA in the US are staggering. But generally speaking, I believe the type of people involved in these protests are primarily concerned about rights and freedoms for people like themselves, white, Christian, straight Americans, not all Americans. In my state, at least, they are actively involved in trying to limit rights for some groups of “others”. 

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Did they "storm the state capital" before....or after...they submitted to police taking their temps?

 

 

After they submitted and were granted entrance to the public portions of the building they tried to force their way into the private chambers, according to the reports I've read. 

6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Genuinely, truly......if you are looking at that pic of 6 guys, 2 of which aren't even touching their weapons at all, do you actually really believe those 6 guys, knowing they are part of a larger group of protesters, are actually there to commit an act of terrorism?  Genuinely asking, looking at that pic, would that be your first assumption?

My assumption is they are hoping to LOOK like they might shoot. If you don't want people to think you might shoot, you don't make a point of displaying a weapon. 

[bolt.]

I'm so sorry this crisis seems to be destabilizing your country -- even just a little bit. A pandemic is hard enough without dangerous armed public posturing adding to the risks.

Recently, here in Canada, we had our worst mass shooting in our history (excluding war and conquest scenarios). The pandemic probably didn't have zero impact on the perpetrator's actions with his gun(s). So, I'm not inclined to take it lightly when people carry firearms during any not-hunting-no-trouble-here scenario. Showing off a gun to make a point (any point) is an inherently threatening thing to do.

I sincerely hope this is some wild fringe group getting a lot of attention. Because if this is representative of the stability of some reasonable potion of the American public: I'm concerned. In addition to it being hell, and me caring about everyone who would suffer: civil war in America would be a disaster internationally too.

[ktgrok]

24 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 

I absolutely agree they are "hoping" to look like they might shoot. 

The idea that they were "storming the state capital" or potentially going to fire on everyone in the crowd without warning, that's equally silly to me.  

And hoping to look like they might shoot = attempting to intimidate lawmakers. Not okay. Not just dumb, but undemocratic. 

As for it being silly to worry they might actually fire...well given the number of mass shootings, I don't think you can reduce someone's worries to silliness. 

[Paige]

31 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Genuinely, truly......if you are looking at that pic of 6 guys, 2 of which aren't even touching their weapons at all, do you actually really believe those 6 guys, knowing they are part of a larger group of protesters, are actually there to commit an act of terrorism?  Genuinely asking, looking at that pic, would that be your first assumption?

What does a mass shooter look like? Most that I’ve seen in the media look like pretty normal people. People who know them often say they never would have expected it. 
 

I don’t believe any of the people in the MI protests intended to shoot up the capital, but it’s a fair point that generally nobody knows who is going to start shooting until it’s too late. 
 

I’m a little unclear on weapons rules now. So- it’s fine to carry lots of guns into capital buildings to protest lawmakers, and the sergeant at arms better understand he’s not threatened. However, if at any point I interact with a police officer somewhere else, whether I know I’m a suspect or not, and the officer suspects my cell phone is a gun, I can be shot because he or she feels threatened? Or what if I have a legal gun and they see it? Or maybe I have a toy gun that I’m swinging around alone in a park? That’s a shoot first no questions asked scenario?

I feel we have a whole lot of inconsistencies regarding gun rights and expectations. 

 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Paige said:

What does a mass shooter look like? Most that I’ve seen in the media look like pretty normal people. People who know them often say they never would have expected it. 
 

I don’t believe any of the people in the MI protests intended to shoot up the capital, but it’s a fair point that generally nobody knows who is going to start shooting until it’s too late. 
 

I’m a little unclear on weapons rules now. So- it’s fine to carry lots of guns into capital buildings to protest lawmakers, and the sergeant at arms better understand he’s not threatened. However, if at any point I interact with a police officer somewhere else, whether I know I’m a suspect or not, and the officer suspects my cell phone is a gun, I can be shot because he or she feels threatened? Or what if I have a legal gun and they see it? Or maybe I have a toy gun that I’m swinging around alone in a park? That’s a shoot first no questions asked scenario?

I feel we have a whole lot of inconsistencies regarding gun rights and expectations. 

 

Seriously. Black kid in a park with a toy gun = shot dead. White guys in the capital building with signs threatening death = patriots?

[Momto6inIN]

Of course it’s white privilege! Men of color doing the same thing would be arrested or shot. Duh. But that doesn’t mean the “no big deal” reaction to the white men doing it is wrong and needs to change … it means the “men of color look sketchy” reaction is wrong and needs to change.

I am a pacifist. We own a few guns and use them to hunt, but according to our faith we would serve as noncombatants if drafted into the armed forces. If I would never pick up a gun to fight for my country, I would certainly never pick one up to fight against it either! Therefore, as a Christian, in my view, I would personally not feel comfortable or that it was appropriate for me to bring a gun to a protest. I would also feel uncomfortable being at a protest where other people were carrying guns, regardless of what type they were.

However, I also believe very deeply in other people’s rights to do and say stuff I personally would never do or say. They were carrying these firearms legally, and they were not trampling on anyone else’s rights (being free from feeling uncomfortable or scared is not a Constitutional right), so they are within their rights to do so, even if I personally disagree with them and wouldn’t do it myself.

Was it threatening? Well of course it was! Our Constitution was pretty much founded on the premise that our rights are inherent and not given by the government and that from time to time the government needs to be reminded of this. I don't think think it was personally threatening, as in a "I might shoot you today if this doesn't go my way" kind of way, but it was certainly threatening in a "I want to remind you who's boss and what's at stake" kind of way. Obviously the law enforcement present didn't feel like there was an imminent threat of a shootout. I do think it at least kind of makes sense for them to bring guns to a protest about government overreach. Again, that doesn’t make it moral or the right choice or even particularly smart, but it’s not really baffling to me.

Do I think a militia could ever defeat the US military? No, I don’t. But as in the American Revolution and also more recently the Vietnam war, there are examples in history of small and poorly trained but highly motivated forces wreaking enough havoc on a larger and more powerful and more organized force to make that larger force eventually give up. Especially if, as it would almost certainly play out here in the US if heaven forbid such a thing were ever to happen, a large portion of the people in that larger force were reluctant to really unleash the full power of their arms against their own fellow citizens.

[ktgrok]

12 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

Was it threatening? Well of course it was! Our Constitution was pretty much founded on the premise that our rights are inherent and not given by the government and that from time to time the government needs to be reminded of this. I don't think think it was personally threatening, as in a "I might shoot you today if this doesn't go my way" kind of way, but it was certainly threatening in a "I want to remind you who's boss and what's at stake" kind of way.

Threatening lawmakers with bodily harm while they vote isn't okay. 

VOTING is democratic.

Threatening people with guns because you don't like they way they might vote is not. 

If by "whats at stake" you mean "the potential for a violent revolution" that should be reserved for if and when the legal measures written into our constitution fail. 

[rebcoola]

19 minutes ago, Paige said:

 

I’m a little unclear on weapons rules now. So- it’s fine to carry lots of guns into capital buildings to protest lawmakers, and the sergeant at arms better understand he’s not threatened. However, if at any point I interact with a police officer somewhere else, whether I know I’m a suspect or not, and the officer suspects my cell phone is a gun, I can be shot because he or she feels threatened? Or what if I have a legal gun and they see it? Or maybe I have a toy gun that I’m swinging around alone in a park? That’s a shoot first no questions asked scenario?

I feel we have a whole lot of inconsistencies regarding gun rights and expectations. 

 

Very true.  I actually vastly prefer obvious open carry because than it's very clear who has a weapon.  With the prevalence of closed carry it makes everyone jumpy especially police because they never know who has a gun and when they might pull it.

[Sneezyone]

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, the idea that Americans are going to stop being jumpy, shooting first, effectively curtailing the right of armed protest for people of color  only...dies a quick and certain death.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sneezyone

[TCB]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

Genuinely, truly......if you are looking at that pic of 6 guys, 2 of which aren't even touching their weapons at all, do you actually really believe those 6 guys, knowing they are part of a larger group of protesters, are actually there to commit an act of terrorism?  Genuinely asking, looking at that pic, would that be your first assumption?

I don't think even they would be stupid enough to plan something like shooting a bunch of people. It looked like an intimidation effort to me. What worries me though is if something unexpected happens and wondering how they might react. I honestly do not view people who do those kind of things as the most measured, clear thinking types.

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, TCB said:

This is very interesting. I can see how Native American people have that history that would make them cautious. Do you think that other Americans are tuned into that history then, and this is what makes them fearful of government tyranny? 

 

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Pshaw. The people protesting like this will coopt all kinds of stories to justify themselves but if native people or other groups arm themselves in protest they are further decimated using legal and physical means. 

 

I could be wrong, but I thought TCB was making the point that many white Americans *aren't* tuned into the history of Native Americans, at all. 

The people making noise about tyranny are probably the same ones who would try to justify or gloss over what we did to Native peoples. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

 

 

I could be wrong, but I thought TCB was making the point that many white Americans *aren't* tuned into the history of Native Americans, at all. 

The people making noise about tyranny are probably the same ones who would try to justify or gloss over what we did to Native peoples. 

Probably. I was scoffing at the idea that these protesters have American Indian history in mind when they protest. If it suits their interests they’ll adopt it but only for this one, narrow, purpose.