Completely agreed with that in this case. Insofar as Andy Ngo, I think that was undeserved and should be prosecuted hard.Originally Posted by Mitch
Completely agreed with that in this case. Insofar as Andy Ngo, I think that was undeserved and should be prosecuted hard.
#RESIST
Bruce Gray recently referred to these people (both the Left and Right) as “Political Violence Hobbyists.” IME that is a spot on description of both sides.
The sign of good training is never having to use it. -- Clint Smith
In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
The Zimmerman incident is more complicated. I used to think that he was provoked or pursued Martin, but after reading more and listening to Andrew Branca discuss it, I now think he acted reasonably at the time.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/0...use-affidavit/
These people... not so much.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...poulos-speech/Wong, in his opening statement, pointed to social media exchanges between Marc Hokoana and a friend, Brandon Caley, the night before the protests in which Hokoana purported boasted that “If the snowflakes get out of hand” — using a pejorative term for liberals often used by Trump supporters — “I’m just going to wade through their ranks and start cracking skulls.”
In response, Caley asked if he was going to carry a gun. Marc Hokoana indicated he was not but then added that his wife would be “carrying.”
. . .
Marc Hokoana told his friend that he was going “full melee,” using a gaming term for hand-to-hand combat.
Change the facts a little. The husband doesn’t say stupid things on social media. The husband isn’t looking for “full melee,” and the couple weren’t “Political Violence Hobbyists” spoiling for a fight. Rather, they were Mr. and Mrs. Average Concealed Carry seeking to hear a speech by someone they find interesting or provocative or inspiring, and assuming the police, as is their job, will intervene as necessary to prevent violence by those who find the speaker less inspiring than they.
As in the later Weimar era and early Nazi era, does brownshirt (antifa) street violence combined with self-imposed police impotence mean that Mr. and Mrs. Average must refrain from attending events that the brownshirts oppose. The alternative being prosecution for homicide if one or more of the brownshirts engages in actions that Mr. or Mrs. Average reasonably believes presents an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to one or both of them?
No. Don’t change the facts. The facts are what they are. Your hypothetical is irrelevant to this situation. These are no babes in the woods that accidentally stumbled into a protest. These people knowingly and intentionally attended this event. Their own prior statements about violence aside, these events are well known to be shitshows that devolve into street violence. The people who attend them on both sides do so with the intention of fighting each other in the streets.
That said the failures by local authorities in Seattle and Portland to let the police do their jobs is inexcusable.
BTW - you have your history wrong. The Brownshirts were Nazis. The Antifa were the communists the brownshirts fought in the streets. Like the left and right groups fighting in the streets today there are no “good guys” involved regardless of their ideology.
Not here, but as I've often remarked, the only difference between the Nazis and the communists in Weimar/early Nazi Germany was the color of their team jerseys. The same can generally be said of communists and national socialists wherever they have been or can be found.
In referring to the antifa gentlemen as brownshirts, I wasn't using "brownshirt" as a literal reference to the color of their jerseys. While their jerseys tend to be Eagles midnight black in color, their philosophy and more so their tactics are indistinguishable from those of the literally brown shirted brownshirts circa 1930.
In hypothesizing different facts, I was contemplating, and inviting a discussion of, the implications for ordinary, law abiding concealed carriers of escalating antifa street violence mixed with police passivity.
OK I guess I'll play the bad guy.
At some point people get fed up and say "no more" and this can and does include political rallies. They had as much right to be there in opposition as the "upset snowflakes" did. Each of us individuals have a different point at where it becomes necessary to speak up. When the party of tolerance becomes intolerant and then resorts to violence, well, they get what they get. This shoot sounds kosher to me but I have zero expectation of actual justice being served beyond what's already been served.
If you want to go to the grocery store in relative safety, carry a gun. I do. I owe it to a number of people and entities to be alive tomorrow, and it is reasonable and right to do what can be done to improve my chances.
If you want to make a point, and violence might be part of it, then by all means do make your point, if it’s worth it. Literally the greatest people in history, I teach my kids, have chosen that path. St. Charles Lwanga, St. Lawrence, Chanah and her sons; all serve as a real and actual model for what any of us may ultimately may be called to do.
But all of these people accepted that fate without resistance. That’s how this is supposed to be done.
Antifa hasn’t nearly evolved to that point yet; we’re not there yet in America, and I pray we’ll never get there.
Last edited by JAD; 07-07-2019 at 04:37 PM.
Ignore Alien Orders
Reply With Quote