Will Guns Keep the Peace?

Berzerker

Deity
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
21,785
Location
the golf course
In our next episode of the young and the restless, a twist appears in the plot... The protest will be held in an area where concealed carry is allowed. The last time our characters tangled this happened:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/01/6250...far-right-and-antifa-groups-clash-in-portland

Around 6 p.m. local time, Patriot Prayer initiated its permitted march, working its way along Third Avenue. But projectiles quickly began flying.

Gee, I wonder who started the fight. I did get a kick out of the guy with the flag in his backpack holding back protesters. I silence thee in the name of the flag, be gone!

The police will be policing of course, they'll be making sure people with guns have carry permits. But what I'm interested to find out is if the guns will deter violence or if the place becomes a shooting gallery. I wouldn't be too eager to throw something if my target has a gun. But once shots are fired everyone with a gun - cops and protesters alike - will be reaching for their guns looking for the shooter and everyone with a visible gun becomes a suspect and anyone identifying the shooter will become even more suspect if they react.

I understand passions run high on this issue, thats why I think antifa starts these fights. Their hatred for the 'fascists' is stronger than the protesters' hatred for them. My evidence for this is these 'alt-right' protesters aint shutting down left wing rallies. I suspect the two sides actually agree on some things, like the impact of corporatism on our political institutions.

Anyway, I know the 1st Amendment restricts the state and not the people, but I figure anyone willing to throw stones at a protester would gladly replace it with a cop's badge and baton. I dont trust them to preserve free speech if they're already using force to silence protesters now.

On the other hand, neo-Nazis and some 'alt-right' factions probably dont believe in free speech either and thats just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure they have plenty of objectionable opinions too. But they still get to speak their minds, dont they? If the KKK was showing up at Black Lives Matter protests to attack them, would that be tolerated? Hell no. Free speech is neutral about the politics of the message.

The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote last year that Patriot Prayer had "trolled the Northwest with a series of rallies designed to provoke violence." The group was behind a rally in San Francisco last year that was cancelled before it took place, after many had anticipated violent clashes.

Your honor, she was asking for it with her provocative attire... And thats why we see burkas - and 'anti-fascists' muting speech. So the SPLC blames the victims? If they're provoking violence (they made us attack them!) then why not let them have their rally and organize your own for a future date?

That way you wouldn't look like the fascists you're supposed to be opposing. I'm sure the good people of Portland would gladly spend a nice Saturday afternoon at a peaceful protest in sufficient numbers. They might even let someone actually address the other protester's objectionable opinions to educate us while providing an example of how civil society works better when people can speak.
 
I'm sure the good people of Portland would gladly spend a nice Saturday afternoon at a peaceful protest in sufficient numbers. They might even let someone actually address the other protester's objectionable opinions to educate us while providing an example of how civil society works better when people can speak.
I find your faith in Humanity Disturbing.
 
The only protest that I can think of that devolved into a shooting gallery (outside of police and union busting) was the Greensboro Massacre, which was more of a planned KKK terrorist attack against unarmed protesters. But hey I'm sure there were fine people on both sides.
 
The only protest that I can think of that devolved into a shooting gallery (outside of police and union busting) was the Greensboro Massacre, which was more of a planned KKK terrorist attack against unarmed protesters. But hey I'm sure there were fine people on both sides.

I've seen Trump's comment about fine people conflated with images of neo-Nazis, why not accuse him of endorsing KKK terrorism too?
 
The SPLC is itself a hate group. I wish they'd be honest about and put themselves on their watch list, but that's way too much to ask. (I'd respect them a little bit if they did; I have no respect for them now)
 
The SPLC is itself a hate group. I wish they'd be honest about and put themselves on their watch list, but that's way too much to ask. (I'd respect them a little bit if they did; I have no respect for them now)


So, you lie about that because you are a racist or because you are a fascist?

Moderator Action: That will be enough of the flaming, please. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought they had a stellar reputation, but I dont remember what they were doing during Waco and Ruby Ridge. I do remember the ADL was jumping on the state bandwagon about those dangerous zealots blah blah yada yada

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/260735/splc-klan-hunters-to-smear-machine

You’d think that an organization with such a gleaming record would be richly deserving of support, particularly as far-right thugs are once again openly on the march.

Then again, you could ask Sam Harris.

In late March, the SPLC included a piece about the best-selling author in its daily Hatewatch Headlines, a compilation of media reports on bigots, thugs, and other assorted creeps. Why was the neuroscientist and prominent atheist thrown in together with Mark Anthony Conditt, the Austin bomber who had murdered two black men, and Nazi war criminal Jakiw Palij? Because Harris defended Charles Murray, a political scientist best-known for arguing that genetic differences may account for varying levels of intelligence between races. The assertion drove many in academia and journalism to label Murray a racist; he was famously shouted out of an appearance at Middlebury College last March, and was labeled a “White Nationalist” and an “extremist” by the SPLC. But when the prominent Harvard geneticist David Reich echoed Murray’s ideas in a New York Times op-ed last month—arguing that “it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races’”—Harris took several of Murray’s critics to task on Twitter, including Vox’s Ezra Klein.

eh damnit, this aint the IQ thread and I'm way off topic. I'll post that oped by Reich in that thread
 
Last edited:
So, which of your favorite nazi groups did they say mean things about?
They slandered them, Neo-Nazi's are fine people ya know, totally undeserving of the scorn piled on them by the Liberal-Media Elite! Just ask any neo-nazi group and they'll tell you the same!
 
So, which of your favorite nazi groups did they say mean things about?

How 'bout the Family Research Council? That's the big one; remember the terrorist attack in 2012 triggered by the SPLC list?

(looking at the list now) Tea Party Nation, D. James Kennedy, David Horowitz
 
Family Research Council...

FRC believes the context for the full expression of human sexuality is within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman.

FRC does not consider homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and transgenderism as acceptable alternative lifestyles or sexual "preferences"; they are unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families, and society. Compassion compels us to support the healing of those who wish to change their destructive behavior.


The Missouri man and homosexual “marriage”
proponents categorically reject the defi nition of
marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the
presence of “love” and “mutual commitment.” But
once marriage is no longer confi ned to a man and
a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any
relationship between two or more partners of either
sex—even non-human “partners.”

And a pamphlet titled "Homosexuality is not a civil right"

Ah, yea, well, they can gtfo.

As for the topic itself, well, I don't think guns are going to change the situation since people are not behaving rationally. They're gonna do dumb stuff and not think of the consequences. There's just gotta be less tolerance from the police when it comes to violence and it's not going to be pretty.
 
Last edited:
The prevalence of guns does little to affect the rate of violent crime. Instead, the prevalence of guns increases the lethality of violent crime. We can assume the same is true of violence generally. Guns won’t prevent violence, they will make the violence more lethal.
 
The violent crime rate does NOT depend on access to weapons. It is mostly cultural. Depending on which metric you use, the UK has a slightly to vastly higher violent crime rate than the USA and all guns are illegal there.

I know some people who previously participated in Antifa protests but I haven’t heard from them in a while.
 
Back
Top Bottom