A few weeks ago: "regime change is bad" was updated to "regime change is good". This was a great success, so now new updates are being released.
Now, there is a new update: "must not be infringed" now means "if you're carrying a concealed gun at a protest, you are a domestic terrorist and will be summarily executed after being disarmed and restrained."
Please prepare for your next update, due to be released in a couple of months. In "We oppose Middle Eastern quagmires", strike the word 'oppose' and insert 'support'.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and remember to keep trusting the plan.
I think having a gun in such a situation is and should be protected by the Constitution though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not losing sleep over it. He was almost undoubtedly a terrible person. But the administration needs to get its messaging right.
It is protected. Just because it is protected, doesn't make it not a bad idea, and the fact that it is protected doesn't mean you're not a piece of shit for exercising that right in bad faith. It's for self-defense. This doesn't cover aggression. If you're armed for aggression, it's not self-defense.
I don't think this concept has any legal merit though. And if it does, I really don't think I want the government to be the arbiter of that. Barring him not carrying ID (which incurs just a small fine), he was legally carrying.
Yes, yes. We're not talking legally. I already said his right in protected. I already said he was within his legal rights. This does not stop him from being in the wrong for arming himself with the intent or possibility of aggressing.
Legality is not a magic shield that makes you right. Exercising your Rights does not make you not a piece of shit, depending on how you're choosing to go about it. The entire concept of Rights, when it comes to the legality, rests on a somewhat fragile assumption of reasonable behavior. If you choose to do retarded things or go out looking to do harm, you are very well within your legal right to do so. You're also a piece of shit and might have to be put down.
I do agree he is morally in the wrong. I don't think many here would question that. Just insomuch as video evidence seems to show he was not legally in the wrong, there probably needs to be some form of accountability for it even if it is something that is just for show like removing that officer from a public-interfacing position.
In an ideal world, him being morally in the wrong would be the end of it. But we live in a society of laws, and one subjected to the will of any room temperature IQ normie capable of dragging themselves to the polls at that, so that needs to be taken into account. We do not have the political capital to have incidents like these and then handle them poorly on the PR front. I live in a state that voted for Trump by like 10 points and I would be shocked if >50% of my normie coworkers support ICE.