Global Protests Against Social Distancing, Lockdown, Vaccine Mandate

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 766 comments
  • 37,034 views
Dotini
Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...

I try to but you don't make it easy.

Even with a thread specifically dedicated to the reaction to covid in the United States, a stand back moment in of itself if you think about it, it is quite difficult to follow up on all the spreading madness. :indiff:
 
Liquid
Even in an open carry state, at what point does the National Guard get involved? Should they get so far as to indeed disrupt the state capital building and flood the House floor would be quite worrying.

It brings me back to an idle wonderment of mine about having the second amendmemt, fine, but what happens when armed idiots get behind something really stupid?

I'm assuming that it's the National Guard that would deal with it. Either them or the Marshal Service.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure, but I feel like the protesters in Michigan are definitely crossing a line. Open carry is perfectly fine. Bringing your open carry weapon into the capitol building is perfectly fine. Brandishing a weapon in capitol building (or any place for that matter) is not fine. In fact, it's illegal under Michigan Penal (hehe penal) Code 750.234e. According to that, brandishing a firearm is a misdemeanor punishable by up-to a $100 fine and/or up-to 90 days in jail.

It's clear the protesters were using their firearms to intimidate and invoke fear in people, which is what brandishing a weapon is. At the very least, they should all be given citations of $100 for doing so.

If they would've made it onto the House floor though, I fully expect it would've ended badly for all sides. There would've been an exchange of gunfire between protesters and law enforcement. It would've been a no-win situation that would've resulted in lives lost and even a bigger divide. Hopefully, it doesn't come to having to have the National Guard defend the Michigan State Capital because that's going to get real ugly as well. But with Gov Whitmer extending the stay at home order through the end of May, I think Michigan is closer to that very scenario than not.
 
Joey D
I'm not exactly sure, but I feel like the protesters in Michigan are definitely crossing a line. Open carry is perfectly fine. Bringing your open carry weapon into the capitol building is perfectly fine. Brandishing a weapon in capitol building (or any place for that matter) is not fine. In fact, it's illegal under Michigan Penal (hehe penal) Code 750.234e. According to that, brandishing a firearm is a misdemeanor punishable by up-to a $100 fine and/or up-to 90 days in jail.

It's clear the protesters were using their firearms to intimidate and invoke fear in people, which is what brandishing a weapon is. At the very least, they should all be given citations of $100 for doing so.

If they would've made it onto the House floor though, I fully expect it would've ended badly for all sides. There would've been an exchange of gunfire between protesters and law enforcement. It would've been a no-win situation that would've resulted in lives lost and even a bigger divide. Hopefully, it doesn't come to having to have the National Guard defend the Michigan State Capital because that's going to get real ugly as well. But with Gov Whitmer extending the stay at home order through the end of May, I think Michigan is closer to that very scenario than not.
Click to expand...

It's clear that the goal was not a peaceful protest.
 
McLaren
Is that better or worse than being taken out of context?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Joey D
Michigan Penal (hehe penal) Code
Click to expand...
1s3wlm.gif
 
Joey D
I'm not exactly sure, but I feel like the protesters in Michigan are definitely crossing a line. Open carry is perfectly fine. Bringing your open carry weapon into the capitol building is perfectly fine. Brandishing a weapon in capitol building (or any place for that matter) is not fine. In fact, it's illegal under Michigan Penal (hehe penal) Code 750.234e. According to that, brandishing a firearm is a misdemeanor punishable by up-to a $100 fine and/or up-to 90 days in jail.

It's clear the protesters were using their firearms to intimidate and invoke fear in people, which is what brandishing a weapon is. At the very least, they should all be given citations of $100 for doing so.

If they would've made it onto the House floor though, I fully expect it would've ended badly for all sides. There would've been an exchange of gunfire between protesters and law enforcement. It would've been a no-win situation that would've resulted in lives lost and even a bigger divide. Hopefully, it doesn't come to having to have the National Guard defend the Michigan State Capital because that's going to get real ugly as well. But with Gov Whitmer extending the stay at home order through the end of May, I think Michigan is closer to that very scenario than not.
Click to expand...

What's particularly concerning to me about this is that these folks appear to be trying to force their will, with guns, when their position is held by a minority of residents of Michigan. Only 37% of Michiganders (as of today) disapprove of the Governor (and by extension, her actions I suspect). So you have a small minority of militants attempting to intimidate an elected body that is democratically representing the will of the people seemingly in good faith. That is troubling. I'd give them more latitude if their display of iron represented something of a popular revolt against a wildly unpopular government that was acting in bad faith...but that really doesn't seem to be the case here. It's fair to argue about the extent of the lockdown and such...but this seems pretty outta control.
 
andrea

I agree with the Grim Reaper.
Click to expand...

Florida at it's best, just letting this guy take the mic and talk. That wouldn't happen anywhere else. And then when he's done he just stands behind her. They couldn't even think of how to end the segment properly with him just walking off camera :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the other side of the country, they protest the beaches being closed.







Similar to the Michigan situation, it’s some people in a confined area, but it’s not exactly a lot of people. I probably agree with some of these people on the issue of the need to find ways to (safely) reopen the economy, or share concerns about government over reach (just a concern, I don’t think it’s actually happened on any sort of large scale at this point), but this just looks dumb.
 
Some wealthy owner of a jewelry store chain in Connecticut/NY area had 20,000 tests seized. What is wrong with this people? They think they can keep them for themselves and their friends? 19,990 friends? Really?
 
PzR Slim
Think I'd be shaking and sweating too if some lunatic was screaming and no doubt spitting in my face.
Click to expand...


I think this type of thing is going to be seen more and more. They are going to spread the word among themselves to start going up to someone wearing a mask who's basically doing the appropriate thing and invade their space or worse. They might even start ripping masks off of people and spitting on them. You know, show them just what freedom in 'Murica means.
 
I'm all for people wanting to protest (its part of a democracy and in this case as long as they practice some social distancing) but armed protest doesn't make any sense at all. Some people could argue that the guns are carried for self defence but its easy also to see that some people would open carry like that for the intimidatory effect. Thats not cool at all.

For what its worth-I'm an Aussie and we do like our guns but I think most people here would not be happy with people protesting with guns in their hands-not to mention if anyone turned up to a government building with any form of weaponry would be met with armed police (and disarmed/shot) and rightly so. Maybe its a cultural thing but the thought that its legal for anyone apart from a LEO to enter a government building with a firearm is just staggering.
 
Redirect.

Dotini
The governors know what they are doing is not strictly legal
Click to expand...

Source?

The tug of war between federal and state creates a seemingly infinite sea of grey areas, ripe for cherry picking by both sides.
 
Liquid
Redirect.

Source?

The tug of war between federal and state creates a seemingly infinite sea of grey areas, ripe for cherry picking by both sides.
Click to expand...

I suppose one could argue that stay at home orders are in violation of the First Amendment, particularly the part about the right to assemble. However, there's also the Tenth Amendment which grants powers to the states that's not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. So I'm not sure where it'd fall, but there's an argument for both sides and, technically, both have merit and could be correct.
 
Liquid
Source?
Click to expand...
My nephew is a juris doctor and a lobbyist in daily contact with both sides of the aisle in Olympia, as well as the governor's office and the Seattle Mayor. He writes much of the new legislation since the legislators seldom have law degrees.
 

Latest Posts

Back