Sorry yes it is relevant to what you have written.
You say it isn't about the 2nd ammendment but use the same sophistry that is used against gun control ad nauseum.
I'm going to need you to point out the sophistry. Don't just make an accusation without pointing to what I have said that has an intent to deceive.
Let me be clear, when I say something is not relevant, I mean it is an intellectual sidenote. We are discussing a specific event in a specific town around specific circumstances. Generic intellectual discourses about ideology of Gun love it individualism are tangential. Not particularly germane.
Individualism. It is a persistent idealogy at the core of American culture. It is why people want to have guns to defend themselves and open carry them outside their homes, it's also why arseholes tag along to protests and riots and grab themselves a new TV, it's why those dickhead rioters thought it would be a good idea to push a flaming dumpster towards a petrol station.
Again, I avoided this intellectual discussion because it wasn't on point. While I may disagree with your overbroad definition of what individualism is and isn't... I don't think that point gets to the core of how one must act under the circumstances as they were a year ago August in Kenosha. That's my point. What you think American Culture is or isn't and how that compares to say England's may be a discussion worth having. But thats a general and generic discussion. No point I made was intended to address that. Rather my points were made in addressing the realities on the ground in Kenosha last August, when the defendant found himself in a hip of trouble.
Maybe you could rely on the state to control the protests and prevent property damage. Rather than rely on loose groupings of militia with no recognised chain of command and no jurisdiction.
Good. The State or local authorities abdicated their responsibilities in the nights following the shooting of Jacob Blake. The police being the target of the protestors aire, backed off and let the rioters have their way. Hence why the burning, smashing and looting was greatest on the first day.
By day 2, Actual Kenoshans we're in the streets doing clean ups and and damage evaluation. There was a mini counter protest (to the city council) requesting policing of the 'protestors'. Those who did that were promptly labeled racist and anti-black lives matter by the media.
In response to the lack of leadership by the government, Businesses souggt out private security to help protect their propertirs and others boarded up their businesses and crossed their fingers.
That was the reality on the ground on the day prior to the shooting. Hence why I keep sidestepping yours and BMATP's attempt at an intellectual discussion about ideology, 2nd Am Individualism or whatever else. Those overacting principles are not addressing the reality of that day. And that's what I'm discussing.
Do you acknowledge that having all these military fetishists on the street actually stokes up tensions more?
Now I'll delve into some of what you really want to discuss. As that's only fair. I'm sure I've been boring the last few posts. So here goes :)
No I don't agree that it stokes up tension more. You are trying to assume as true the very thing you should be showing with evidence.
Have riots with no open carry militia types and police presence been more or less violent (and I judge that by numbers of physical altercations and deaths) than riots with them present? The answer I suspect is a resounding No
This is a question of fact. You don't have to ask me to agree, just provide the evidence that supports it.
The article you sent was full of the type of sophistry you complained about earlier. I'm surprised you couldn't see it.
The article purposely conflates Protests, with riots. Protests ( i.e marches or walks and speeches for demands) are generally less prone to violence. Regardless of the political leanings of the protestors.
Riots on the other hand ( i.e. the aftermath of some protests) and just pure uncontrolled mayhem generally, has more violence not less when armed Militias are not present.
Again, it's all well and good to compare law abiding citizens protesting to hooligans rioting and point out that there was less violence amongst the law abiding Protestors.. Duh! They are law abiding. Hooligans who riot aren't!!! And often it's those rioters that the Militia types are forced to defend against in protecting their community.
