More responsible gun owners: Threatening violence to reopen North Carolina

[HomerJS]

More people who should have their guns confiscated. Rather then through the normal legislative process they are threatening to kill people in order to reopen North Carolina.

Their statement tries to have it both ways by saying "of course we don want to kill anyone". However state their threats if the state government attempts to enforce the lockdown.

Perhaps we can start by refusing this group and their families any medical treatment if they contract COVID-19. Freedom without responsibility should be the conservative mantra.

Husband of ‘Reopen North Carolina’ leader says he is ‘willing to kill’ in fight against lockdown

The husband of a leading protester campaigning to “reopen” North Carolina has said he and his fellow protesters are “willing to kill people” as they fight to overturn their state’s lockdown order.Adam Smith, whose wife Ashley was arrested at a recent protest in the state capital of Raleigh, said...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Commodus]

If he's willing to kill, he should just get COVID-19 and cough on his parents -- he won't have to fire a shot. It's sad that people like him are so selfish and ignorant out there.

 

[eelw]

Let mini state civil wars happen. Let’s see how they like the aftermath.

 

[Fenixgoon]

So at what point does a threat just become outright terrorism?

 

[darkswordsman17]

I say give him the COVID Hindsight 20/20 test, where he injects the virus and then quarantines. If he lives, he's free to go about once he's no longer contagious. If he decides after having it that he has a change of heart like so many others that had similar "give me pedicure or give me death!" mentality, then we'll know he passed the hindsight 20/20 test.

So at what point does a threat just become outright terrorism?

When they act on it?

Now, certainly it makes one wonder if he's a "don't negotiate with terrorist" type of person so is either a hypocrite if he's not willing to accept a military response to his militant threat, and thus he's just a Kenfucky Tried Chickenshit that wants to talk tough but only when he thinks there won't be a response.

 

[eelw]

But it only takes one chickenshit to crap his pants in fright and accidentally pull the trigger

 

[Vic]

Law and order from the violent right.

 

[mindless1]

The main problem I have with this is that killing people doesn't reopen North Carolina, so just another idiot that we shouldn't be paying any attention to.

 

[Jhhnn]

The main problem I have with this is that killing people doesn't reopen North Carolina, so just another idiot that we shouldn't be paying any attention to.

But, he's one of the Liberators! isn't he?

 

[Vic]

The main problem I have with this is that killing people doesn't reopen North Carolina, so just another idiot that we shouldn't be paying any attention to.

According to the article, he's married to the leader of a political group with 68,000 members. And now they're threatening to kill people if they don't get their way politically. Why should we ignore someone like that?

 

[mindless1]

^ Loaded question, but take your pick why we should ignore it.

1) I'd be happy if a militia group overthrew an oppressive government. I'm not suggesting this is the right time to do it, but when is it the right time?

2) Because it's not your state? Let the rebels play out their strategy and everyone else learns from their mistakes, not necessarily to lead a better rebellion, but the whole of it, whether that works in modern society (which it doesn't).

3) Because if you don't ignore idiots, you just encourage more idiots, which makes you part of the problem. Idiots that are ignored, tend to crawl back into the woodwork. This is not directed at you personally, the same extends to all the idiot followers this couple has. Giving them extra attention just serves to legitimize their gripes. Telling them to just go fsck off and not giving them another minute, lets them know where the rest of society stands.

What possible good comes from giving these tards attention? Will it rally up an opposition force? If so, which is doubtful, is that a good thing? Instead what it would more likely do is give similarly minded idiots the thought that they have like minded countrymen and they are serving some cause.

Sorry, no, it is idiotic and even far, far, far worse to spread this nonsense LIKE HOMERJS DID!!!! instead of letting it die as the ramblings of an idiot.

Do you not recognize that idiots spew this kind of nonsense every day, and all they need to spread their message is publicity?

 

[Vic]

^ Loaded question, but take your pick why we should ignore it.

1) I'd be happy if a militia group overthrew an oppressive government. I'm not suggesting this is the right time to do it, but when is it the right time?

2) Because it's not your state? Let the rebels play out their strategy and everyone else learns from their mistakes, not necessarily to lead a better rebellion, but the whole of it, whether that works in modern society (which it doesn't).

3) Because if you don't ignore idiots, you just encourage more idiots, which makes you part of the problem. Idiots that are ignored, tend to crawl back into the woodwork. This is not directed at you personally, the same extends to all the idiot followers this couple has. Giving them extra attention just serves to legitimize their gripes. Telling them to just go fsck off and not giving them another minute, lets them know where the rest of society stands.

What possible good comes from giving these tards attention? Will it rally up an opposition force? If so, which is doubtful, is that a good thing? Instead what it would more likely do is give similarly minded idiots the thought that they have like minded countrymen and they are serving some cause.

Sorry, no, it is idiotic and even far, far, far worse to spread this nonsense LIKE HOMERJS DID!!!! instead of letting it die as the ramblings of an idiot.

Do you not recognize that idiots spew this kind of nonsense every day, and all they need to spread their message is publicity?

I'm choosing..

4) You want us to ignore this because the messaging is politically embarassing for you.

 

[pauldun170]

Under normal circumstances, those comments places that entire shitstain of a group on the FBI's watch list.
Under Trump....I'm not so sure

 

[FaaR]

^ Loaded question, but take your pick why we should ignore it.

Ignore terroristic threats? Wow. That's a bold new strategy in the war on terror!

1) I'd be happy if a militia group overthrew an oppressive government. I'm not suggesting this is the right time to do it, but when is it the right time?

The right time would be for reasons of oppression, when you're actually being oppressed. A state trying to fight a deadly contagious disease doesn't qualify there.

Also, the "I'm not suggesting" bit doesn't sound like a very firm distancing from this guy or his ideology, honestly.

2) Because it's not your state?

Wut. How is this at all relevant? Freeze peach, etc etc.

3) Because if you don't ignore idiots, you just encourage more idiots

No, that's not how it works. By ignoring them you embolden them. It lets them push up the starting line of their actions/rethoric to a safe point where they know the gubmint won't respond to their threats.

Parallel: Ammen Bundy's occupation of that wildlife preserve some years ago.

Parallel 2 (somewhat more on the nose, as it were): Chamberlain, during WWII.

What possible good comes from giving these tards attention?

Prison time is not "attention". This is clearly a radicalization process going on, you don't break that by ignoring it any more than you stop a house fire by ignoring that smoldering cellphone charger under your bed. You snuff it out, firmly.

It's like you don't raise considerate, well-behaved children by letting them run completely rampant any way they want. As a parent you set limits, with consequences if those limits are crossed. That's how people learn. (Also, ironically, typically, a strategy favored by authoritarian-leaning rightists like this gun-toting, triggerhappy wannabe-revolutionary here... lol)

 

[mindless1]

^ You're not considering the bigger picture if you think that ignoring people emboldens them. I truly mean that, that you lack a very basic and fundamental understanding of how society works. Ignoring idiots is a pervasive, normal thing to do.

That is not true at all, 99.99% of the time, is exactly how society manages to put many people into low wage jobs to fuel the economy.

No, the most stupid thing that could possibly be done is to give this idiot publicity instead of feeling alone and ignored.

That incites people to change more often than not. If you want to focus on the "not" then there is still positive reinforcement to help people instead of attacks that only cause divisions.

When did divisions ever solve anything?

NO, ignore random idiots. If you don't, it will never end.

 

[nickqt]

^ You're not considering the bigger picture if you think that ignoring people emboldens them. I truly mean that, that you lack a very basic and fundamental understanding of how society works. Ignoring idiots is a pervasive, normal thing to do.

That is not true at all, 99.99% of the time, is exactly how society manages to put many people into low wage jobs to fuel the economy.

No, the most stupid thing that could possibly be done is to give this idiot publicity instead of feeling alone and ignored.

That incites people to change more often than not. If you want to focus on the "not" then there is still positive reinforcement to help people instead of attacks that only cause divisions.

When did divisions ever solve anything?

NO, ignore random idiots. If you don't, it will never end.

You ignore random idiots that cut you off on the highway.

You investigate and monitor people who say that they are going to commit murder in order to change policy. If this wasn't a white conservative, and was instead an islamic brown, he'd be labeled a terrorist.

 

[TheVrolok]

You ignore random idiots that cut you off on the highway.

You investigate and monitor people who say that they are going to commit murder in order to change policy. If this wasn't a white conservative, and was instead an islamic brown, he'd be labeled a terrorist.

Yep, and I'm sure this particular poster wouldn't be suggesting to ignore him.

 

[mikeymikec]

1) I'd be happy if a militia group overthrew an oppressive government. I'm not suggesting this is the right time to do it, but when is it the right time?

Maybe you should have finished that thought before you posted it. That might have been the right time then.

 

[Greenman]

"We are mostly business owners and employees that are losing our income and denied our right to provide for our families. We have come together to demand action from their elected officials".

All the foolish blustering aside, I understand that basic point of view. We can't inflect catastrophic financial damage on people and expect them to simply accept it. No one should be the least bit surprised by this. These folks have been sacrificed as a necessary casualty for the greater good. They don't like it, and that's not only understandable but perfectly acceptable.

 

[sandorski]

Damned Commies.

 

[mindless1]

Maybe you should have finished that thought before you posted it. That might have been the right time then.

I don't consider it oppressive to slow down a viral outbreak, rather saving lives.

We'll see if this fellow starts killing people. Well, you'll see, I'm ignoring him.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't consider it oppressive to slow down a viral outbreak, rather saving lives.

We'll see if this fellow starts killing people. Well, you'll see, I'm ignoring him.

Imagine what we would say if it turned out someone was publicly stating they were going to kill people and the government did nothing, and then that person killed people. We would all be outraged at the negligence.

No. If someone threatens to kill people you investigate and/or arrest them.

 

[mect]

"We are mostly business owners and employees that are losing our income and denied our right to provide for our families. We have come together to demand action from their elected officials".

All the foolish blustering aside, I understand that basic point of view. We can't inflect catastrophic financial damage on people and expect them to simply accept it. No one should be the least bit surprised by this. These folks have been sacrificed as a necessary casualty for the greater good. They don't like it, and that's not only understandable but perfectly acceptable.

Who has sacrificed them, though? People like to blame the state governments, but the data continue to confirm that people wouldn't be frequenting restaurants, bars, and other non-essential small businesses even in the absence of government restrictions. But once again, conservatives are able to distract people from the real issue, instead placing the blame on state governments that are trying to minimize the health casualties. A few token patrons willing to frequent these businesses will not save the businesses, but will prolong and exacerbate the spread of the virus.

If we want to minimize the damage done to the economy, we need to listen to the experts. We need to put the economy in a medically induced coma until we can sustain it again, and in the meantime provide these workers and small business owners with the cash relief they need to make it through. McConnell has said republicans aren't willing to do that though.

 

[fskimospy]

Who has sacrificed them, though? People like to blame the state governments, but the data continue to confirm that people wouldn't be frequenting restaurants, bars, and other non-essential small businesses even in the absence of government restrictions. But once again, conservatives are able to distract people from the real issue, instead placing the blame on state governments that are trying to minimize the health casualties. A few token patrons willing to frequent these businesses will not save the businesses, but will prolong and exacerbate the spread of the virus.

If we want to minimize the damage done to the economy, we need to listen to the experts. We need to put the economy in a medically induced coma until we can sustain it again, and in the meantime provide these workers and small business owners with the cash relief they need to make it through. McConnell has said republicans aren't willing to do that though.

Yes, it’s too late for that. What we will likely get now is some sort of hazy middle ground where bars and restaurants get some modest number of customers back and the virus sticks around at moderate levels, killing a thousand or so people a day. It’s hard to see how losing so many customers is a sustainable business model.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

All the foolish blustering aside, I understand that basic point of view. We can't inflect catastrophic financial damage on people and expect them to simply accept it. No one should be the least bit surprised by this. These folks have been sacrificed as a necessary casualty for the greater good. They don't like it, and that's not only understandable but perfectly acceptable.

Is this the part where bootstraps and salt of the earth and personal responsibility no longer applies? I always get confused about conservative messaging.