A massive protest formed in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday in response to President Trump’s crackdown on immigration and emphasis on deportations. The protest, which was organized and promote…
If you want for the police to get an excuse to mow you down with a tank that is. They so wish some of you have guns so they can kill you and have a ready and ironclad excuse
But that’s the thing. Shooting unarmed protestors is fucked up even by their standards, they aren’t above it, but they have to hide it and not everyone is having a good time about it, so there is tension and hesitation.
Shooting armed protestors is why they joined in the first place, it’s what they dream of, it’s everything that a cop ever wanted.
And a big portion of population that is not OK with the first scenario is also dreaming of the second one.
One agent in a crowd of unarmed people will not cause that effect. But if everyone is on edge and carrying a gun, then yes, one will be enough to cause full blown massacre.
I just want you to recognise the difference between “police mows down a crowd of unarmed protesters” and “police crushed armed insurrection in an intense shootout”.
It just takes one provocateur to make that difference. The number of actual firearms at the protest doesn’t matter as long as there’s one, which the provocateur can bring.
Police do not have freedom to easily arrest people at large protests. This whole protest was breaking the law at various points and the article didn’t even know if anyone has been arrested.
And at large protests…
This is what allies are for.
This is what guns are for.
Both can be true. But only if you have enough people in either case.
If you want for the police to get an excuse to mow you down with a tank that is. They so wish some of you have guns so they can kill you and have a ready and ironclad excuse
It’s not like they’re above shooting unarmed protestors. Just compare how cops dealt with cop city with the Bundy occupation.
But that’s the thing. Shooting unarmed protestors is fucked up even by their standards, they aren’t above it, but they have to hide it and not everyone is having a good time about it, so there is tension and hesitation.
Shooting armed protestors is why they joined in the first place, it’s what they dream of, it’s everything that a cop ever wanted.
And a big portion of population that is not OK with the first scenario is also dreaming of the second one.
All they need is one agent provocateur for that, then.
One agent in a crowd of unarmed people will not cause that effect. But if everyone is on edge and carrying a gun, then yes, one will be enough to cause full blown massacre.
It will if police are present and are looking for an excuse to violently quash protest.
I just want you to recognise the difference between “police mows down a crowd of unarmed protesters” and “police crushed armed insurrection in an intense shootout”.
It just takes one provocateur to make that difference. The number of actual firearms at the protest doesn’t matter as long as there’s one, which the provocateur can bring.
Are you saying illegal immigrants should illegally obtain firearms?
Police do not have freedom to easily arrest people at large protests. This whole protest was breaking the law at various points and the article didn’t even know if anyone has been arrested.