Politics What if it was someone else?

[crandc]

On Martin Luther King Day, around 20,000 heavily armed white men marched on the capitol in Virginia to protest proposed gun safety laws (none of which would actually take guns away). They proclaimed they would not abide by such laws, threatened to use their guns against anyone trying to enforce them, and many called for a new civil war. They were lauded by Trump and right wing media. Even mainstream media were praising the fact that while they were certainly trying to intimidate with the display of weapons they did not actually shoot anyone so they were "peaceful".

What if it was someone else?

What if 20,000 heavily armed black men marched, saying they would not obey the law, threatened to use their guns against law enforcement, called for a new civil war? Would that be praised, called "peaceful"?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Hispanics proclaiming they would use weapons to remove children from cages, and to protect Dreamers and refugees against immigration officials?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Muslim men proclaiming they obey a higher law and would use weapons against anyone who tried to make them follow civil law?

Or 20,000 heavily armed gay, lesbian and transgender people proclaiming they had enough of violence against their community and would use weapons against homophobes and gay bashers?

Or 20,000 heavily armed women, of all colors, saying no more Jeffrey Epstein, no more Donald Trump, no more R Kelly, no more men getting away with sexual assault, they would use weapons against any man who sexually abuses women, including police and prison guards?

I don't really have to ask what the response would be; in fact, such marches would not happen because they would never get permits.

Tell me how white male privilege isn't a thing.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Odd, everything I've read on that protest is that it was peaceful and law abiding. Some even stayed and picked up trash afterwards, but please continue with your agenda

 

[SlyPokerDog]

On Martin Luther King Day, around 20,000 heavily armed white men marched on the capitol in Virginia to protest proposed gun safety laws (none of which would actually take guns away). They proclaimed they would not abide by such laws, threatened to use their guns against anyone trying to enforce them, and many called for a new civil war. They were lauded by Trump and right wing media. Even mainstream media were praising the fact that while they were certainly trying to intimidate with the display of weapons they did not actually shoot anyone so they were "peaceful".

What if it was someone else?

What if 20,000 heavily armed black men marched, saying they would not obey the law, threatened to use their guns against law enforcement, called for a new civil war? Would that be praised, called "peaceful"?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Hispanics proclaiming they would use weapons to remove children from cages, and to protect Dreamers and refugees against immigration officials?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Muslim men proclaiming they obey a higher law and would use weapons against anyone who tried to make them follow civil law?

Or 20,000 heavily armed gay, lesbian and transgender people proclaiming they had enough of violence against their community and would use weapons against homophobes and gay bashers?

Or 20,000 heavily armed women, of all colors, saying no more Jeffrey Epstein, no more Donald Trump, no more R Kelly, no more men getting away with sexual assault, they would use weapons against any man who sexually abuses women, including police and prison guards?

I don't really have to ask what the response would be; in fact, such marches would not happen because they would never get permits.

Tell me how white male privilege isn't a thing.

Not really sure if that is a fair comparison. If it was 20,000 blacks who supported gun rights it would be treated just fine. Same as hispanics or women or even muslims. They brought guns in support of guns. If the had brought guns because they were protesting something that had nothing to do with guns then that would have been a problem.

 

[Propagandist]

On Martin Luther King Day, around 20,000 heavily armed white men marched on the capitol in Virginia to protest proposed gun safety laws (none of which would actually take guns away). They proclaimed they would not abide by such laws, threatened to use their guns against anyone trying to enforce them, and many called for a new civil war. They were lauded by Trump and right wing media. Even mainstream media were praising the fact that while they were certainly trying to intimidate with the display of weapons they did not actually shoot anyone so they were "peaceful".

What if it was someone else?

What if 20,000 heavily armed black men marched, saying they would not obey the law, threatened to use their guns against law enforcement, called for a new civil war? Would that be praised, called "peaceful"?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Hispanics proclaiming they would use weapons to remove children from cages, and to protect Dreamers and refugees against immigration officials?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Muslim men proclaiming they obey a higher law and would use weapons against anyone who tried to make them follow civil law?

Or 20,000 heavily armed gay, lesbian and transgender people proclaiming they had enough of violence against their community and would use weapons against homophobes and gay bashers?

Or 20,000 heavily armed women, of all colors, saying no more Jeffrey Epstein, no more Donald Trump, no more R Kelly, no more men getting away with sexual assault, they would use weapons against any man who sexually abuses women, including police and prison guards?

I don't really have to ask what the response would be; in fact, such marches would not happen because they would never get permits.

Tell me how white male privilege isn't a thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/fbi-arrest-virginia-gun-rally.html

Especially with this kind^^^^ of thing in the air these days. Powder keg.

 

[CupWizier]

Not really sure if that is a fair comparison. If it was 20,000 blacks who supported gun rights it would be treated just fine. Same as hispanics or women or even muslims. They brought guns in support of guns. If the had brought guns because they were protesting something that had nothing to do with guns then that would have been a problem.

I highly doubt it.

 

[crandc]

The reason California got some of the first strong gun laws in the country? A group of Black Panthers back in the 60s marched in Sacramento, armed. Republicans controlled the legislature and Reagan was governor. They all demanded strong gun restrictions.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Not. All. White.

 

[Hoopguru]

On Martin Luther King Day, around 20,000 heavily armed white men marched on the capitol in Virginia to protest proposed gun safety laws (none of which would actually take guns away). They proclaimed they would not abide by such laws, threatened to use their guns against anyone trying to enforce them, and many called for a new civil war. They were lauded by Trump and right wing media. Even mainstream media were praising the fact that while they were certainly trying to intimidate with the display of weapons they did not actually shoot anyone so they were "peaceful".

What if it was someone else?

What if 20,000 heavily armed black men marched, saying they would not obey the law, threatened to use their guns against law enforcement, called for a new civil war? Would that be praised, called "peaceful"?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Hispanics proclaiming they would use weapons to remove children from cages, and to protect Dreamers and refugees against immigration officials?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Muslim men proclaiming they obey a higher law and would use weapons against anyone who tried to make them follow civil law?

Or 20,000 heavily armed gay, lesbian and transgender people proclaiming they had enough of violence against their community and would use weapons against homophobes and gay bashers?

Or 20,000 heavily armed women, of all colors, saying no more Jeffrey Epstein, no more Donald Trump, no more R Kelly, no more men getting away with sexual assault, they would use weapons against any man who sexually abuses women, including police and prison guards?

I don't really have to ask what the response would be; in fact, such marches would not happen because they would never get permits.

Tell me how white male privilege isn't a thing.

Crandc
I get what you're saying but not sure I totally agree.
I think it depends on the State and possibly City/County?
I think if any of the groups you mention above marched while packing a firearm, within the Oregon State Law, and they were peaceful, they would be allowed too.
Just my opinion

 

[crandc]

My point is not whether such a march should be allowed but rather the different reactions to different people doing the same thing.

 

[Lanny]

Odd, everything I've read on that protest is that it was peaceful and law abiding. Some even stayed and picked up trash afterwards, but please continue with your agenda

Please, pay attention to his agenda.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Please, pay attention to his agenda.

*her

 

[Lanny]

Crandc
I get what you're saying but not sure I totally agree.
I think it depends on the State and possibly City/County?
I think if any of the groups you mention above marched while packing a firearm, within the Oregon State Law, and they were peaceful, they would be allowed too.
Just my opinion

Far Right wingers would protest violently to their armed protest. Someone might even drive a car throught the co

*her

Dammit, I've made that mistake before.

 

[Hoopguru]

Far Right wingers would protest violently to their armed protest. Someone might even drive a car throught the co

Dammit, I've made that mistake before.

dont agree. I think if those groups were protesting gun rights/safety and were peaceful, the righties wouldn't bother. Just my opinion.

 

[MARIS61]

On Martin Luther King Day, around 20,000 heavily armed white men marched on the capitol in Virginia to protest proposed gun safety laws (none of which would actually take guns away). They proclaimed they would not abide by such laws, threatened to use their guns against anyone trying to enforce them, and many called for a new civil war. They were lauded by Trump and right wing media. Even mainstream media were praising the fact that while they were certainly trying to intimidate with the display of weapons they did not actually shoot anyone so they were "peaceful".

What if it was someone else?

What if 20,000 heavily armed black men marched, saying they would not obey the law, threatened to use their guns against law enforcement, called for a new civil war? Would that be praised, called "peaceful"?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Hispanics proclaiming they would use weapons to remove children from cages, and to protect Dreamers and refugees against immigration officials?

Or 20,000 heavily armed Muslim men proclaiming they obey a higher law and would use weapons against anyone who tried to make them follow civil law?

Or 20,000 heavily armed gay, lesbian and transgender people proclaiming they had enough of violence against their community and would use weapons against homophobes and gay bashers?

Or 20,000 heavily armed women, of all colors, saying no more Jeffrey Epstein, no more Donald Trump, no more R Kelly, no more men getting away with sexual assault, they would use weapons against any man who sexually abuses women, including police and prison guards?

I don't really have to ask what the response would be; in fact, such marches would not happen because they would never get permits.

Tell me how white male privilege isn't a thing.

This entire post is delusional paranoia, an obvious attempt at race-baiting, and a complete lie about the 22,000 or more peaceful gun owners who peacefully protested against un-Constitutional infringements on their 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights.

The Bill of Rights applies to all Americans, and the massive turnout reflected that diversity in every way.

Media's biased coverage of gun rally shows left's agenda 'to divide this country': Okafor
By Julia Musto | Fox News

Antonia Okafor Cover, spokesperson for Gun Owners of America, says the Richmond, Virginia rally was peaceful and inclusive.

An annual gun rights rally in Richmond, Va., on Monday was incorrectly painted by the liberal media as a white supremacist rally, Gun Owners of America spokesperson Antonia Okafor said Tuesday.

Appearing on "Fox & Friends" with host Steve Doocy, Okafor -- who attended the rally -- said that if viewers had listened to coverage by CNN or MSNBC, they would have believed there was going to be "some type of violence."

"This was by far, hands down, the worst white supremacist rally I have ever seen," she joked to Doocy. "There were people shaking my hand. I mean, they even let me speak, for goodness sake."

"So, it's almost as if MLK's dream to see that people judge people based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin had actually become reality," Okafor added. "This was just exemplifying the whole thing."

Okafor argued that coverage portraying rally attendees as white nationalists was just adding to the left's agenda "to divide this country."

"And," she said, "You know, the right is not going to stand for it."

There were an estimated 22,000 people at the pro-Second Amendment rally, according to Virginia State Capitol law enforcement.

"I saw all walks of life there and that was the beautiful thing: seeing over 20,000 people, all Americans, coming together over one issue and that is to protect our God-given rights. Which, obviously ... Gov. [Ralph] Northam in Virginia -- he is not doing."

"We cannot divorce God and politics," Okafor concluded. "And, that's what we are seeing right now."

In November, Democrats flipped the state Senate and the House of Delegates, giving them control of both the governor's office and the legislature for the first time in a generation.

Demonstrators are seen during a pro-gun rally, Monday in Richmond, Va. (AP)

Following his reelection, Northam, the state's Democratic governor, vowed to push through new gun-control measures, saying it was a top priority for Virginia Democrats. In doing so, he angered gun rights advocates who believe he is trying to take away their rights.

That suspicion was fueled further on Friday when President Trump warned in a tweet that Virginia Democrats were threatening Americans' right to bear arms.

"Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia. That's what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away. Republicans will win Virginia in 2020. Thank you Dems!" he tweeted.

Last week, four gun control bills advanced in the General Assembly, setting the stage for a contentious showdown between gun rights advocates and the Democratic lawmakers, who campaigned on bringing changes to the state following last year's mass shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal complex.

In a statement following the event, Northam wrote that his teams had "successfully de-escalated what could have been a volatile situation."

He later said the majority of those planning to attend Monday's rally had no interest in fanning the flames of hate but acknowledged there were still a few hellbent on it.

Fox News' Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.

 

[MARIS61]

Gun rights activist Colion Noir: Virginia gun control legislation is all about power
By Victor Garcia | Fox News

Gun rights activist Colion Noir told "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Monday that gun control legislation like the bills currently under consideration in Virginia affects minorities the most.

"The irony is, when they talk about gun control, where do you think they're going to implement these laws the most? They're going to implement them in the minority cities," Noir said. "So they like to bring up the idea and the issue of race and how all of these white supremacist gun owners are going to come and start shooting people. Yet the people most affected by these gun control laws are the very people that they're trying to manipulate to not exercise their rights."

Noir was reacting to the massive gun-rights rally in Richmond, where thousands of people from across the country protested a push by Democrats in the commonwealth to pass more comprehensive gun control laws.

"When it comes to these politicians who are anti-gun when it comes to talking about issues that they're even not doing that well on or things that they just don't want to address, they always pivot to gun control because they see it as one of the easiest things to talk about," Noir said on "Because they like to frame it under the guise of all of, 'these crazy gun owners out here, we got to get the guns off the streets.'"

The bills that sailed through the Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee last week would require background checks on all firearms purchases; allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from people deemed to be a risk to themselves or others; limit handgun purchases to one a month, and let localities decide whether to ban weapons from certain events. The bills still have to pass the full Senate and House of Delegates -- both controlled by Democrats -- before going to Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam for his signature.

"We conclude that these gun control laws, all of these measures have nothing to do with actual safety. This has nothing to do with saving lives," Noir said. "It is about accumulation of power and control. That's what this is about. And it's always been that way."

"When you own a firearm and you are a citizen who owns a firearm, you don't completely and wholly depend on the government for your own safety," he added. "You've now empowered yourself in taking safety into your own hands."

 

[MARIS61]

Cortes rips media's coverage of Virginia gun rally: It's 'narrative promotion,' not journalism
By Joshua Nelson | Fox News

Steve Cortes, national spokesperson for America First, says the media's handling of the Richmond rally does not surprise him at all after 'Charlottesville lie.'

Steve Cortes, national spokesman for America First Action SuperPAC, ripped the media's coverage of Monday's gun rights rally in Richmond that protested a push by Virginia Democrats for comprehensive gun control legislation, calling it biased and agenda-driven.

“When you look at corporate media in this country, they have overwhelmingly forsaken journalism in favor of narrative promotion,” Cortes told "The Ingraham Angle" on Monday, pushing back on the media’s framing of the event as a gathering of “white nationalists.” America First Action is a pro-Trump SuperPAC and Cortes has served on Trump’s Hispanic Advisory Council.

VIRGINIA'S CAPITOL FLOODED WITH GUN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS FOR SECOND AMENDMENT RALLY

Host Laura Ingraham said in the days before the rally, the mainstream media hyped the gathering as a "powder keg" of President Trump supporters that would erupt into violence.

“The foremost narrative they want to promote about the president is that he’s a racist and that those of us who support him are racist as well," Cortes responded.

The gun-rights rally brought thousands of people from across the country to protest the gun control push by Virginia Democrats.

Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, had declared a state of emergency late last week and beefed up security around the capitol. The rally ended peacefully, despite claims that violence would break out in a similar manner to the Charlottesville, Va. protest in 2017.

Cortes said that the Charlottesville rally has served as the “linchpin” of the argument that Trump is a racist and that he had exposed that as a “lie.”

Cortes said that he was taken off the air at CNN for making a PragerU video that debunked the narrative that President Trump had called neo-Nazis “very fine people” after the Charlottesville rally. He said that the media did not credit Trump for condemning the white nationalist there because "it didn't fit the narrative."

He said Trump's reference to "very fine people" at the rally was made about those who showed up to peacefully protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

“For declawing that deception that they continued to push, they put me on the bench,” Cortes, a former CNN analyst, said.

The rally Monday also came about two and a half years after a deadly incident in Charlottesville.

 

[MARIS61]

State senator on Virginia House advancing gun control bills after protest

By Talia Kaplan | Fox News

Amanda Chase, a Republican state senator in Virginia, reacted on Sunday to the fact that Democrats in the Virginia House are advancing a package of gun-control measures less than a week after tens of thousands of pro-gun advocates from around the country rallied at the state Capitol saying, “there’s an all-out war on our Constitution.”

Speaking on “Fox & Friends Weekend,” just days after the pro-gun advocates staged the massive rally in Richmond, Va., Chase, who was a keynote speaker at the rally, said she “won't back down” and will continue to fight against the gun-control measures.

A Democratic-led House committee voted Friday for several pieces of gun legislation that a Republican majority has blocked for years. Those bills include limiting handgun purchases to once a month; universal background checks on gun purchases; allowing localities to ban guns in public buildings, parks and other areas; and a red flag bill that would allow authorities to temporarily take guns away from anyone deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others.

The advancing bills do not yet include a proposed assault weapon ban, a top priority for Gov. Ralph Northam and one that's drawn fierce resistance from gun-rights advocates.

The measures will go to the full House for a vote, likely next week, before going to the Senate, which has already passed some gun-control bills of its own.


Video
“There’s been is an all-out assault on our fundamentally protected right, the Second Amendment, since [former Virginia governor] Terry McAuliffe implemented executive order 50 while he was in office and that basically started the gun ban in our government buildings,” Chase said. “And since governor two-faced Northam has been in office he has continued that anti-constitutional legacy that Terry McAuliffe started.”

Chase referenced Executive Order Number 50 which was issued after two young journalists were shot and killed during a live television broadcast in Roanoke, Va. in 2015. one of the provisions in the executive order said that “open carry of firearms shall be prohibited in offices occupied by executive branch agencies, unless held by law enforcement, authorized security, or military personnel authorized to carry firearms in accordance with their duties.”

“Now what has happened is the Virginia Senate and House and executive branch for the first time in 27 years, we've seen a complete liberal, socialist takeover of the leadership, the governing leadership in Virginia,” Chase said on Sudnay. “I am leading a grassroots movement. I'm a grassroots state senator and I stand with the people. That’s why they put me here. I'm not a politician. They have reelected me and they know I won't back down.”

She added, “I’ve stood up not only for the Second Amendment because what has happened here is there’s an all-out war on our constitution. They started with the Second Amendment, taking away law-abiding citizen’s ability to protect themselves, making them defenseless, and we're talking about turning the Second Amendment on its head.”

Virginia has become a key flashpoint in the national debate over gun violence.

VIRGINIA'S CAPITOL FLOODED WITH GUN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS FOR SECOND AMENDMENT RALLY

Chase said what is happening in Virginia will have a nationwide impact.

“If you look at Virginia, we are the longest continuous legislative body in the new world,” she said. “We have over eight presidents who are Virginians. Everything starts in Virginia and so that’s why they started, in my opinion, with Virginia.”

“Whatever happens in Virginia could very well happen in the rest of the country and so that’s why it is important that we don't back down,” Chase continued.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[MARIS61]

 

[Lanny]

Every group has their misfits.