These scenes make Antifa/BLM look more and more like the Venezuelan National Militia, but not formed to support the corrupt President of Venezuela, but rather to support and further the political objective of the radical left.
These scenes make Antifa/BLM look more and more like the Venezuelan National Militia, but not formed to support the corrupt President of Venezuela, but rather to support and further the political objective of the radical left.
Originally Posted by El Cid
It’s also noteworthy that this is open carry.
THIS is NOT open carry. It is a threat. We need to start treating it as such.
Well put. A long gun at low ready is really no different than a pistol at low ready. You've got it unholstered and are ready to shoot. Does one need to be able to look straight down the bore before defending oneself? If that's the legal standard, then it's a pretty perilous situation. This stuff has become beyond ridiculous and the "protestors" are only still alive due to the restraint shown by decent citizens. I suspect that their patience and restraint are wearing thin.
Rosco
No mag inserted, that rifle might as well be a stick. It may technically be open carry, but it's useless. (Ignoring the open carry of a pistol in the same image, as it seems not to be the focus of your comment.) I agree that the other image represents a threat, but where's the line in between them? Face coverings? Hand on pistol grip of rifle? Totality of circumstances/know it when you see it?
Have any elected Democrats condemned these people in any meaningful way, or is their consternation directed at people who want to open their businesses? Serious question.
Case in point- Democratic Senator refusing to condemn Antifa and walks out of hearing instead-
https://youtu.be/fLpu0eG2wME
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by Kyle Reese; 08-09-2020 at 09:54 AM.
My dog recently passed...I was looking forward to not carrying for another dog.
This thread has me this close to getting a GSD or Mal...I need some back up.
To be fair I grabbed the first pic online of a slung rifle. Being unloaded isn’t the intent so much as the method of carry.
Yes the totality of the circumstances are key but anyone approaching a person with a rifle held in their hands is no different than holding a Glock at the low ready. It’s a threat. Just ask that lame beta boy in Austin with the AK. Oh wait... we’ll need a medium to talk to that moron. The law doesn’t require an American to wait until the firearm is pointed at you to defend yourself. The more these thugs are allowed to get away with it the more they’ll do it. It’s only a matter of time before someone reacts properly to it. I just pray it’s nobody I know because the media and the left will spread their lies far and wide in an attempt to crucify the person doing the right thing.
Good point.It’s also noteworthy that this is open carry.
THIS is NOT open carry. It is a threat. We need to start treating it as such.
There’s “open carry”, and there’s “brandishing”. I’m pretty sure the latter is a crime. If only it were treated as such.
Surely if the folks in the second photo were holding handguns at low ready, that would be clearly threatening behavior with a weapon.
What’s the difference between gripping a long gun (which happens to be on a sling) at low ready?
Those long guns are much closer to an aimed shot being fired than a handgun in a holster...
Serious question: what are clearly articulable cues that you’re about to be shot?
And what is the reasonable limit of acceptable behavior that falls short of the threshold for being shot in self defense?
ETA: the other thing these “protesters” have going for them is numbers. Three of them simultaneously threaten you with long guns. Even if you justifiably feel threatened and react with deadly force to defend yourself, it’s a losing proposition, even in the short term - one of the three will likely get a hit on you.
Last edited by GyroF-16; 08-09-2020 at 10:08 AM.
I was at a pro-gun protest in CT held at the State capitol in Hartford when the CT post Sandy Hook legislation was being debated. A friend had a suppressed bolt gun on his back with a double loop sling. The rifle was being worn like a backpack with the muzzle pointed at the sky. People, pro-gun people, many open carrying holstered handguns were giving him shit. None noticed that there was no bolt in the bolt gun. Some perhaps unaware that cans are legal in CT were triggered by a silencer. If I remember correctly he even was using the barrel as a flag post and had a small sign attached. Not exactly a threat.
Recently I have decided that exercising my 1st Amendment right buy attending a protest is too much potential. The radical left has convinced me that there is way too much potential risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I can think of a zillion scenarios where my livelihood and ability to support and care for my family would be in jeopardy. Just getting labeled as a Nazi for being in the wrong place is enough to tank a career. (And the Left thinks the Right is all about voter suppression!)
There was a pro-police rally in front of my town hall a couple weeks ago. This was in protest to proposed (now passed) legislation that included the elimination of qualified immunity for police officers. I walked by with my dogs and saw the news trucks with the satellite up-link antennas deployed. I stayed on the opposite side of the road and kept moving. When I retire and don't give a flying F what anyone thinks about me then I will feel freer to speak my mind and attend what I would like to.
"Grand Jury acquits the cops." I know I am being picky but legal terms have legal meanings and we should try to use them properly given what is at stake.
To put on a finer point, only trial (aka petit) juries (usually 12) acquit those charged with crimes as the prosecutor failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
A Grand Jury (usually 12-24) declines to issue an indictment ( aka return a "true bill") because the prosecutor presenting the case failed to prove that a crime had been committed and that the subject of the GJ is the one who committed it to a probable cause standard (lower than beyond a reasonable doubt).
Yes- that is sad. And I can relate... if I were to be doxed for being on the “non-progressive” side of some social issue, and was identified as an employee of my company, I have little doubt that I’d be terminated. Which, in effect means that a condition of my employment is limiting my political expression. I don’t much like that.
Reply With Quote
