Do you feel the same is true about surveillance used on January 20, 2020 in Richmond, VA (2nd amendment protestors)? The one that a state of emergency was declared for it in advance of the event.
Indeed it is! However, in the case of the Richmond, VA rally there was no violence. And the people that participated in the rally did so in accordance with the law.
People in Minneapolis are throwing rocks and setting buildings on fire. That seems a lot more worse than people holding (but not threatening to use) weapons.
Who are you more afraid of - a dude holding a rock they might throw or a dude holding a gun that he could possibly fire?
Yeah, the gun. It is more likely to hurt you. It doesn't matter if folks are threatening to use it or not. The gun can, in general, do more bodily harm. Just because folks didn't use them doesn't mean it isn't a threat. Rocks at least have more purpose than to put holes in things - guns are there to kill other things even when used responsibly. Gun ranges are simply training for this.
I don't believe it is that rational. It's an ideological assessment, not a risk assessment.
If you agree with the people holding the guns, you feel safer with them. If you agree with the people holding the rock, you feel safer with them. It doesn't matter what they are holding.
Broken_Hippo says>"Rocks at least have more purpose than to put holes in things - guns are there to kill other things even when used responsibly. "
- Broken Hippo apparently hasn't been hit by a rock recently!8-) I joke, but...
We're speaking of men holding rocks. You underestimate the effectiveness of rocks as weapons. Every man knows how to use a rock as a weapon and almost everyone has thrown a rock or pounded something with a rock. You needn't throw a rock to kill/harm someone; it's likely faster and easier if you keep the rock in your hand.
Rocks have been used as weapons since before prehistoric times. Rocks have possibly been instruments of death for more of our ancestors than have bullets.
Were the same or similar tools used in Richmond? I can't find any coverage of that specifically.
I mean, I'm sure someone had a CCTV turned on the guys, but surely you'd agree that the Richmond protest was less surveilled and less attended by law enforcement. Broadly, I think the fact that 2A protests tend to be met with gentle indifference by law enforcement instead of the mass surveillance and control techniques used against civil rights folks rather reinforces the upthread point, no?
2A attendees who are carrying firearms are usually licensed, which means they aren't felons and have clean background records. In most states training and licensing is required to carry short firearms (pistols, revolvers). Licensed firearms owners are an unusually safe and cautious group of people.
I wouldn't say that many in VA are licensed, because in VA (and many other states), you don't need a license to purchase or carry firearms. Most states don't require any sort of training to buy a firearm. And every single state requires a background check for any firearm sold by a dealer, (thus the infamous "gun show loophole"), this is a federal law.
Concealed carry does require a license (and sometimes a "training" class, which is laughable at best. (Seriously, I have never known anyone fail this class in my state. A driving license test probably has a 100 times higher failure rate.). And of course, as we are talking about a pro gun rally, carrying concealed defeats the purpose.
I'm a 2nd amendment proponent, but I've been in too many public gun ranges, too many gun shows, and been around too many idiot gun owners to think that the firearms training the vast majority of states (maybe every state?) has or provides is nearly enough. Owning a firearm in this country solely amounts too: have you yet been convicted of a felony or smoked weed?
What about the three guys arrested prior to that very 2A protest in Richmond? What about the nuts in Malheur? Hell, the second worst terrorist attack in the history of the country was carried out by an avowed gun rights advocate (though not, of course, with a gun).
I think if you go look this up, you'll find that these people are not, in fact, particularly peaceful as protestors go. They're simply ignored by the police in ways that the dreadlocked hippies are not.
(I mean, sure, those are all exceptions. But then most of the people in Minneapolis weren't burning anything down either. Have you ever been to a left-wing march? This isn't a demographic known for temper.)
I think to an extent, that was his point. When laws like this are enacted, they are targeted at a perceived enemy or class. And yet inevitably they are turned elsewhere, finally targeting everyone.
I personally feel the same is true for those protesters as well. We all have the right to protest for Constitutional rights and the right to do so free of invasive surveillance measures. As far as I know the VA protesters were not Nazis or other individuals with violent ideologies, they were just normal gun owners.
Most of the MPLS protesters are also normal people fed up with the lack of attention given to the plight of minorities and the poor in the United States. So yeah, no false equivalence/hypocrisy here from me.
