Armed Communists/Antifa March in Georgia

[Expat]

Wasn't their sole purpose in being there to prevent another group from exercising their freedom of assembly and speech.

 

[printcraft]

Can't wait to see ISIS marching down the street with their weapons so we can continue to completely ignore the threat that the group poses to the republic, so we can bicker over their 2nd Amendment rights.

But they are staunch supporters of the 2A, just by being armed you can tell that. It's the same thing I tell you.

 

[printcraft]

Wasn't their sole purpose in being there to prevent another group from exercising their freedom of assembly and speech.

JUST LIKE A TYPICAL 2A MARCH!!

 

[GIJEW]

Yes, civil rights are for all of us, or none of us. Having said that, with all the communist flags, chants equating LEO with KKK, and calling for open borders, It's reasonable to conclude that these people are enemies of the USA--as a nation--our governing institutions, and probably civil order (maybe they did bother to get a parade permit).
Does antifa support the 2A and the rest of the Constitution? Yeah, right. Like hitler supported free speech and democracy--until he had the reichstag burned.

As for the question "guns for defense or intimidation?", that's a hard call--maybe both? Hard to tell from the video, but it looked like 'small town' GA. A parade of flag waving communists might really need defending there. On the other hand, I doubt they were trying to "win hearts and minds", so intimidation would also fit. What seems clear is that the left is serious about destroying the country and rebuilding it into a socialist dystopia, AND they're willing to kill--or die trying--to accomplish their goal.

I couldn't see any LEO in the video which has me think this was a small town. Andy and Barney just didn't manage a cameo appearance. IIRC GA law prohibits carrying guns to any place with a large public assembly--concerts, sporting events,etc--I'm guessing antifa's overwatch wouldn't get ignored in Atlanta.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I find it baffling how easily some would question another's ability to express their rights. As if some are more entitled to them than others. Oh wait, this is the United States. We have a long history of that. Nevermind, carry on.

 

[T.Lex]

If ISIS, communists, abortionists, or any of those kinds of groups want to peaceably protest while armed, I have no problem with it.

Because that cements the constitutional right that I have the right to counter-protest while armed.

 

[printcraft]

I find it baffling how easily some would question another's ability to express their rights. As if some are more entitled to them than others. Oh wait, this is the United States. We have a long history of that. Nevermind, carry on.

Again, nobody said "you can't do that".

 

[GIJEW]

If ISIS, communists, abortionists, or any of those kinds of groups want to peaceably protest while armed, I have no problem with it.

Because that cements the constitutional right that I have the right to counter-protest while armed.

I agree, but I don't have any illusion that the enemies of our society respect the Constitution and see our rights as having reciprocity.

 

[printcraft]

I agree, but I don't have any illusion that the enemies of our society respect the Constitution and see our rights as having reciprocity.

 

[K_W]

My basis for whether they carrying as a deterrent or a threat is the manner in which they carry.

Carrying as an exercise or deterrent would be done in plain clothes, assembling peaceably, with handguns holstered and rifles slung.
Carrying as a threat would be wearing masks and "tactical gear", chanting absurd slogans, burning effigies, with rifles ready in hand.
Carrying as a dumb-ass would be walking down a suburban street like it's a warzone, finger on trigger, muzzle sweeping your buds, while people film you. (01:18)

Which of these do we see in this video?

 

[T.Lex]

I agree, but I don't have any illusion that the enemies of our society respect the Constitution and see our rights as having reciprocity.

Literally, doesn't matter.

Anyone can call anyone else "enemies of society." To a bunch of people, gun owners are enemies of society.

That's why we should support the right to protest, and to do so while armed, regardless what the subject of the protest is.

First they came for the....

 

[GIJEW]

Literally means we should keep our guard up.
Just because I recognize antifa's right to protest along with their RKBA, doesn't mean I have to refuse to recognize what their fascist agenda is, and that they're enemies of the principles this country is based on.

"First they came for..."---are you talking to me or is that rhetorical?

 

[OakRiver]

I agree, but I don't have any illusion that the enemies of our society respect the Constitution and see our rights as having reciprocity.

So what is your solution?

 

[printcraft]

Literally, doesn't matter., First they came for the....

People that fired a warning shot at dogs.

 

[T.Lex]

Literally means we should keep our guard up.
Just because I recognize antifa's right to protest along with their RKBA, doesn't mean I have to refuse to recognize what their fascist agenda is, and that they're enemies of the principles this country is based on.

Agreed (I think "antifa" is the current bogeyman, but the part about defending against fascist agendas is absolutely common ground).

I continue to have faith (even in this day and age) that most Americans can see the ridiculous irony of someone marching with guns in an effort to ban guns.

To me, having non-gun owning people become accustomed to seeing people with guns in public (peaceably)* helps with 2A support, all day every day.

"First they came for..."---are you talking to me or is that rhetorical?

Things are not always binary.


*I keep using "peaceably" for a reason.

 

[T.Lex]

People that fired a warning shot at dogs.

Speaking of dumb**** moves....

 

[printcraft]

Speaking of dumb**** moves....

Everyone has the right.

One man's dumb**** is another mans 2A supporter/freedom fighter etc.

 

[GIJEW]

So what is your solution?

Like I said: "keep our guard up". We continue to use civil means to protect ourselves: persons, Constitution, society, while tolerating the same by those we disagree with--even if we have good reason to believe that their ultimate goal is to destroy our country. When the likes of antifa or their associates in government decide to replace the rule of law with violence, then we use violence.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

My basis for whether they carrying as a deterrent or a threat is the manner in which they carry.

Carrying as an exercise or deterrent would be done in plain clothes, assembling peaceably, with handguns holstered and rifles slung.
Carrying as a threat would be wearing masks and "tactical gear", chanting absurd slogans, burning effigies, with rifles ready in hand.
Carrying as a dumb-ass would be walking down a suburban street like it's a warzone, finger on trigger, muzzle sweeping your buds, while people film you. (01:18)

Which of these do we see in this video?

Yes. Compare and contrast Antifa's "2A Rally" with the one held at the state capitol back in April here in Indy. Hear anyone chanting slogans? See any effigies being burned? See any long guns carried at the low ready, or handguns unholstered? Me either. This is what peaceful assembly looks like.

[video=youtube;_KcLLN_hT2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=_KcLLN_hT2Q[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

Um....communists not only have a right to protest, they have a right to try to convince as many people as they can of the rightness of their beliefs to the point of passing it into law if they can get the votes.