03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:09 pmI saw that on Facebook. It became apparent he was outgunned very fast. I am not so sure pulling a gun on that big of a mob is the right answer. One guy with a hand gun could quickly be over whelmed by them, even if they did not have guns. Personally, as much as I would love to just obliterate several of those terrorists, I would likely just make my get away and live to fight another day.howdy wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:59 pm Look at the gun this guy pulls on BLM protestors that entered the restaurant where he was eating. The article says several BLM members were visibly armed:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisville-r ... ucky-derby
As a side note. I am disgusted by the media referring to these terrorists as "protestors". They are rioters! Our city governments need to start shutting these thugs down when they cross the line over to bullying and intimidating citizens. Where the heck were the cops???
On all points. I support the 1A and 2A so armed protests are fine as long as crimes aren't committed. By crimes I mean assault, disturbing the peace, making threats, etc.
I haven't seen this video so I can't comment on it specifically but I think it was in NY/NJ where diners had their plates upset, drinks taken/spilled, restaurant windows broken, patrons taunted, etc. These are crimes. If the authorities don't enforce the law, citizens/victims will defend themselves and things will get very ugly.
I'm no lawyer but I think circumstances and context matters. If you go to a protest/counter-protest and things go sideways, I'd never excuse any crimes but that possibility has to be considered given the high tension in society today. When you simply go to dinner and are confronted, it is had to say "you put yourself in a vulnerable position".
Coddling rioters/looters/arsonists must stop. Protest is a right but so is being free from attack. These two things can and must co-exist.
When the mayor of Portland has finally seen the light, perhaps there is some hope after all. If the anarchists think this is bringing them converts, they are mistaken. You can scare/intimidate people for awhile but as Gov. Cuomo is finding out, those you trample you are happy to do likewise you when the opportunity arises.
I didn't witness the civil rights movement of the 60s but from what I've read there were 2 competing philosophies: 1) non-violence & changing of hearts and minds via civil protest and 2) violent revolution. Dr. King's side won because it was a moral and just cause (and look at the alternative). Where is that side today?
SA-TX