In May of 1963, there were mass protests in Birmingham, AL. Blacks were protesting racist laws, passed by Democrats, and enforced by Democrats.
The laws were bad. The leaders were bad. The cops and other enforcers were bad.
That isn’t to say there wasn’t more than a bit of propaganda going around.
A motel manager was told to get the blacks out of the motel pool. His orders were ignored. The police were being ignored.
The law was bad. The people enforcing it were bad. The hotel manager? We don’t know, but he was painted as bad.
The gallon of acid he poured into that pool would not have done a damn thing to anybody in the pool. Unless it was poured on somebody, it was so diluted b the time it entered the pool that it did not and could not cause harm.
He used fear and ignorance to drive the blacks from his pool, because he was ordered to do so.
Not every person in the South was racist. Not every person was bad. Enough of them were to paint an entire section of our country as evil racists.
64 years later, conservatives are still being painted as racist using these images of Democrats enforcing Democrat-passed laws.
The problem with dealing with people in the spur of the moment is that “bad” or “evil” is not visible in the moment. It takes time.
I still remember the first time I saw the George Floyd video. I was enraged. I was glad I didn’t have to choose between watching a cop kill a black man or shooting the cop and spending the rest of my life in jail.
It turned out that every single thing told to me by that video was a lie. And my country burned.
The evil that is the modern (and historic) Democrat came to the forefront. They held “protests” that turned into riot after riot after riot.
They attacked federal buildings for weeks on end. They took over parts of cities and refused to allow people free travel through their city.
And they lied to us. The entire memo of “mostly peaceful” comes from a reporter telling us that the “protest” was mostly peaceful while the rioters set fires in the background.
When Kyle showed up to defend a commercial property, because the Minneapolis police wouldn’t or couldn’t, he ended up being chased by a convicted felon. When that felon attempted to take Kyle’s rifle from him, Kyle shot him, and made a good communist out of him.
A little later, another man became known as Lefty. He was carrying concealed. He attempted a sneak attack on Kyle, when Kyle pointed his rifle at Lefty, Lefty stopped, then continued his attack, quickly losing the use of his right arm.
Lefty was not legally carrying, by the laws of Minnesota. His permit to carry had expired.
He absolutely had the right to carry. The Second Amendment protects the right of every person to armed self-defense, and more. The law that made it illegal for Lefty to carry was unconstitutional. It might not have been found such, yet, but it is.
I will stand up to anyone to clearly, loudly state that Lefty had the right to carry.
He did not have the right to misuse his gun. When his gun came out of its holster to threaten Kyle, he was no longer on Second Amendment protected grounds.
You have the right to carry. You have the right to defend yourself. You don’t have the right to use your gun for criminal acts.
We need to be aware that rights are not situational. Your right to carry doesn’t end when you go to protest. Your right to carry doesn’t end when you go to a restaurant that serves beer. Your right to carry doesn’t end because somebody else is scared.
The Fifth Amendment does NOTend when a person is accused. That would make it worthless.
Your rights are not situational.
they are rights until you commit a crime…
imho you take a gun to a “protest”that to me is intent. you confront police officers at said protest and are not defending yourself that’s criminal.
or to put it in 3rd grade english- if you gonna be dumb, you gotta be tuff…
Curby, I disagree. Protesting, as in the example of MLK leading marches in the 1960s, is free speech, and “petition” protected by the explicit wording of the 1st Amendment.
Showing up at a protest, perhaps carrying a sign, is just that. It does not mean there is an intent to confront police, and even less does it mean an intent to commit violence. Until and unless it does, there is no commission of a crime nor even a desire to do so, and Chris’s position is the correct one.
You might argue that going armed to a protest, where the risk of agitators stirring up a riot is a real concern, shows bad judgment. But bad judgment is not itself a crime.
pkoning, If only “bad judgement” were a crime, we could rid ourselves of most of the government in one fell swoop. LOL… I often tell people, here in America we have a Constitutionally protected right to be an asshole, to be stupid, and to be wrong. I’ll add bad judgement to that. None of those are crimes.
“they are rights until you commit a crime”
They are rights even after you commit a crime. Rights exist, whether you can exercise the right or not.
.
What you lose upon conviction of the crime is not the right, but your ability to freely exercise that right. You have a fundamental human right to self defense against threats both political and personal. However, when you choose to exercise that right in a criminal manner (brandishing your firearm at law enforcement springs to mind) your ability to freely exercise that right can and will be restricted (or removed) by society. It could be jail time, or in the case of stupid, death.
ummm…. if YOU commit a crime those rights are lost to YOU.
whether they are chiseled in stone YOU. lose the rights…
THAT is what Im saying.
You are almost there.
You lose the ability to freely exercise that right. Society restricts it because you are a criminal.
.
The right remains. Rights are granted by your creator, whether you think that is some deity, or your parents, or DNA, or random chance, does not matter. Something created you, and as a human being, you have the right. And, that right is eternal. It cannot be taken away from you. Only the free exercise of it can be taken away.
.
The free exercise of a right… that is what a criminal loses.
.
And, I have none less than the esteemed diplomats of the UN backing me up on this one. If rights were transitory, and you could lose them because the government decided you should no longer have them, then why is there a Human Rights Committee and a Woman’s Rights Committee in the UN? The government of Afghanistan has declared the women there have no rights. So… what is there to fight for? Why have a committee? Even the leftist, globalist run UN thinks rights are eternal, and exist even when the exercise of those rights is prohibited.
.
Rights are not granted by the government, nor can they be taken away. An individual’s ability to exercise that right can be taken away.
I wish I could like this more than once. Any “right” granted by the government is not a right but a privilege. If they can give it to you, then they can take it away. The Constitution doesn’t grant any rights, anywhere. What it does is restrict the government’s ability to infringe upon those rights (at least in principle… in practice, they do anyhow, but that’s another post). The Constitution doesn’t tell me what I can and can’t do, for the most part. It tells the Government what THEY can and cannot do.
.
My rights are my rights. If I’m exercising them, and the Constitution doesn’t cover them, I can attempt to bring that up with the Executive and Legal branches. They may or may not agree with me. It’s how we SHOULD have dealt with “gay marriage” (or, as I like to call it, “Marriage”… because if two or more adult people want to have a legal bond together, just get the fuck out of their way and let it happen).
Once again, it is important to distinguish between the existence of a “right” and the free exercise of that right.
.
As an example, in the UK right now, every single person, regardless of background, race, heritage, skin color, or religion, has a fundamental human right to express their opinion. However, the government has decided to restrict the free exercise of that right. (Well, for a certain percentage of the population.) The right itself exists, whether you can exercise it or not. Say something the government deems offensive, and you get put into the klink.
.
All human rights exist, whether the government in power allows you to use them or not. A criminal that has demonstrated sufficient bad judgement (and intent) has their right to free movement, their right for a say in their government, their right to privacy, and their right to carry arms restricted. Yet, that right still exists. Their behavior, and irresponsible or illegal exercise of that right has provided the government/society with justification to restrict the free exercise of fundamental human rights.
.
Does a protester have a right exercise their right to self defense by carrying a firearm to the protest? Absolutely. Is it a stupid idea? Depends, are you planning to confront the law enforcement or an opposing side with anything more than a raised voice? If so, best to just stay home, or leave your gun home.
.
Did Pretty have a right to self defense? Yep. Does that right remain even if he is disbarred the use of firearms? Yes. That right remains even if he is prevented from using any type of arm more dangerous than harsh language.
And, regarding Saint George of Floyd, that is a perfect reminder of why the 72 hour rule exists. A story, almost perfectly designed to cause outrage is aired. The news tell you how you should view the story, and what it means.
.
Outrage ensues.
.
And, a few days later… crickets. Everything you were shown, and told to believe is wrong. Notice how Renee Good disappeared from the news. And the ICU nurse is not forefront anymore? Because the facts came out, and the narrative could no longer be supported.
.
Right now, Former office Chauvin is rotting in jail, unlikely to be released. Despite the facts showing he did not cause Floyd’s death, and his actions were well within department guidelines/training. But, politics requires him to remain behind bars. That too is a result of the 72 hour rule, specifically when the narrative can be sustained past the 72 hours.
The Kyle thing happened in Kenosha, Wi during a “Firey but mostly peaceful” riot.
Lefty was a convicted felon who was banned from carrying a fire arm (IIRR).