A ‘Wall of Vets’ Protects the Constitution

[Phil1111 915]

Military veterans said they banded together to protect the free speech of demonstrators.

"A week after federal officers in Portland, Ore., brutally struck a Navy veteran who said he had approached them simply to ask a question, a group of military veterans on Friday joined the front lines of the city’s growing protests.

Duston Obermeyer, a Marine Corps veteran, said he and other veterans were there to make sure federal officers did not infringe on the free speech of protesters, who numbered in the thousands.

“Our veterans are here specifically to support the rights of the protesters to protest,” said Mr. Obermeyer, who said he had deployed three times during a decade in the Marines."

The question to be asked is why has US schools failed so miserably in teaching the values associated with the US constitution?

Why is it left to vets to protect not only free speech. But the abuse of power of the presidency?

[JerryBaumchen 1,067]

24 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Why is it left to vets to protect not only free speech. But the abuse of power of the presidency?

Hi Phil,

In a word:  Trump

Says it all.

Jerry Baumchen

[airdvr 200]

Setting buildings on fire is not a protest.

[JoeWeber 2,330]

34 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Setting buildings on fire is not a protest.

So what is it, a wienie roast? Maybe when they start choking white real estate agents you'll have a different opinion.

[kallend 1,649]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Setting buildings on fire is not a protest.

The standard for protests was set in Boston, Dec 16, 1773.

Edited July 26, 2020 by kallend

[yoink 321]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

Setting buildings on fire is not a protest.

Bludgeoning protestors asking questions is not appropriate use of force.

 

[billvon 2,435]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

Setting buildings on fire is not a protest.

Of course it is.  Not one that I approve of - but it gets it on TV, and that makes change happen.

Needless to say, we should not need to burn buildings to get change.  But peaceful protest is ignored, so this is what's left.

 

[ScottishJohn 25]

I thought you had the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from oppressive government. Yet I don't see the hoards of  people who protested with guns about being locked down standing up for themselves against this tyrany. 

[kallend 1,649]

4 hours ago, ScottishJohn said:

I thought you had the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from oppressive government. Yet I don't see the hoards of  people who protested with guns about being locked down standing up for themselves against this tyrany. 

Putting on camo, waving your AR15 around and pretending to be a tough guy standing up for freedom is quite different from actually doing it.

[Phil1111 915]

7 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I agree that burning down buildings that contain the contents of someone's life work, a fellow American citizen, has no place in organized protests. This is the difference between protest and rioting. 

Peaceful protests in huge numbers actually get better results anyway. That was the main motivator for passing the Civil Rights Act. Once you start smashing windows and burning buildings to make a point, the point is forgotten. People just start cleaning up your damage and telling you to go to hell. 

The real downer is when those idiots in Minneapolis burned down their own historical bookstore. Just stupid. 

Protests are not a homogeneous body of people. Anyone can join merely by walking into the group and they can have entirely different motives. Just as with LE some rouge officers decide to assault a law abiding citizen.

Its important to keep in mind that some individuals within the protest movement. May have criminal motives completely separate from the protest and merely use the protest as cover. Anarchists so to speak.Just as there can be some cops who use the opportunity to "teach a lesson" to protestors. By aiming rubber bullets to the heads of peaceful protestors.

[JoeWeber 2,330]

On 7/26/2020 at 5:07 AM, ScottishJohn said:

I thought you had the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from oppressive government. Yet I don't see the hoards of  people who protested with guns about being locked down standing up for themselves against this tyrany. 

Funny that. Push come to shove and you express your American prerogative by pulling down your mask and spitting on the cashier. In that sense Scalia was right in Heller: a militia is just one or two assholes with a deadly weapon; there's nothing organized about it.

[billvon 2,435]

On 7/26/2020 at 2:07 AM, ScottishJohn said:

I thought you had the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from oppressive government. Yet I don't see the hoards of  people who protested with guns about being locked down standing up for themselves against this tyrany. 

Keep in mind that that's only for whites.

In the 1960's, Black Panthers armed themselves and started peacefully patrolling streets in Oakland.  Within months a GOP assemblyman had written one of California's first gun control bills, and none other than Ronald Reagan signed it into law.  The NRA was behind this bill 100%.  Their fear of black men with guns outweighed any minor ideological issues they had with gun control; they had to disarm these scary black men.

[wmw999 2,149]

A "good guy with a gun" and veteran supporting the right to protest was killed in Austin the other night. He was opening carrying. I'd actually chatted with him while I was on that protest with my nibling a couple of weeks ago.

A driver seemed to be accelerating into a protest crowd, and he confronted the driver. Shots rang out, and the driver sped away, to turn himself in later. Everyone, of course, was properly licensed.

Story in NY TImes

It's behind a paywall; if you can't get there and are interested, I'll send the text to you. It's copyrighted, and it's also 3 pages long, so reading it on dz.com would be pretty painful.

This is all complicated, isn't it? But the Austin protest community was accepting of him (open carry and all), and are not happy with this.  The driver seems to either have been pissed that he had to stop for protesters, or he decided to scare them/teach them a lesson. And of course the platitudes and pontificating have already started.

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,435]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

This is all complicated, isn't it? But the Austin protest community was accepting of him (open carry and all), and are not happy with this.  The driver seems to either have been pissed that he had to stop for protesters, or he decided to scare them/teach them a lesson. And of course the platitudes and pontificating have already started.

Yep.  And sadly one result of this will likely be that more people will carry weapons - to "defend" themselves against people on both sides - and the likelihood of a shooting will go way up.

"Well, I had to shoot first, after what happened to that guy.  Rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."

[turtlespeed 212]

On 7/25/2020 at 9:06 PM, JoeWeber said:

So what is it, a wienie roast?

Its Arson.

 

[airdvr 200]

On 7/25/2020 at 9:06 PM, JoeWeber said:

So what is it, a wienie roast? Maybe when they start choking white real estate agents you'll have a different opinion.

Are you drunk posting?  

[Phil1111 915]

Just now, airdvr said:

Are you drunk posting?  Are you drinking and then posting?

Translate from one drunk realtor to an intoxicated DZ operator.

[JoeWeber 2,330]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

Are you drunk posting?  

Well of course I'm drinking and then posting. How else could I engage here? No matter, answer the question without deflection. You can do that, right? And yes, I'm now drinking.