This Republican Senator Calls Three Black Men Peacefully Carrying Long Guns 'Mob Rule' - Reason.com

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  steve-ott  •  2 weeks ago  •  30 comments

By:   sshackford (Reason. com)

This Republican Senator Calls Three Black Men Peacefully Carrying Long Guns 'Mob Rule' - Reason.com
A Second Amendment hypocrite with a plan to undermine federalism

Once again, blacks openly carrying is "mob rule". Whites openly carrying in the Michigan capitol is crickets.

Neither group was breaking any laws by openly carrying long guns.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


A Second Amendment hypocrite with a plan to undermine federalism


Scott Shackford| 6.25.2020 2:00 PM

This week Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) described a handful of protesters carrying guns in public as "mob rule."

Is Loeffler the rare conservative politician with a history of calling for expanded gun controls? That doesn't appear the case. Here's a tweet from her from January expressing appreciation for National Rifle Association President Carolyn Meadows:


Great to be back in Atlanta with @NRA President and fellow Georgian, Carolyn Meadows. Truly appreciate her work in Washington and around the country to protect and defend our 2nd Amendment Rights. #gapolpic.twitter.com/CAWS9FbEUk
— Senator Kelly Loeffler (@SenatorLoeffler) January 17, 2020

What could possibly make a pro-gun-rights senator suddenly take such a dim view of citizens' rights to bear arms? Watch this Wednesday segment from the Fox show America's Newsroom, and the answer becomes apparent pretty quickly:


Joined @edhenry on @AmericaNewsroom to discuss my efforts to end the defund the police movement & pass the #JusticeAct. Enough with the political games from Democrats in Washington. Americans deserve better. #gapol#gasenpic.twitter.com/uopR5jiJHU
— Kelly Loeffler (@KLoeffler) June 24, 2020

As you can see, Fox interviewed Loeffler amid a montage of young, armed black people protesting police abuse in Atlanta, where a cop recently shot and killed Rayshard Brooks. Another Fox host, Sean Hannity, reported on Tuesday that there were "at least three men brandishing long guns" near the Wendy's where the incident happened.

Hannity, Fox, and Loeffler all represented this as evidence of the dangers of defunding police. Indeed, one young man with a gun (who seemed perfectly polite and respectful) told Fox he was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun because he didn't believe police officers would protect him, adding that cops were not going to be "allowed" in this space. Asked what he'd do if police rolled up and ordered him to drop his weapon, the man insisted he had the legal right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution to bear arms: "And at no point will I allow my right to be disturbed." Good for him!

Carrying long guns in public is legal in Georgia, by the way (with exceptions for a few places like courts and schools). Fox does not actually accuse any of these men of breaking any laws. But they clearly intend viewers to see these men as a threat—and not just because they have put up barricades and hope to shut out the police, but because they're bearing arms. By contrast, when a predominantly white group of protesters showed up at Michigan's capitol in April to protest the state's COVID-19 rules, Fox's coverage was reasonably neutral and factual, giving voice to critics but pointing out that guns were legally allowed in the state Capitol building.

Loeffler isn't just a hypocrite about gun rights. She's trying to undermine another value conservatives are supposed to believe in: federalism. The senator is introducing legislation that would reduce federal transportation funding from states and municipalities that cut funding to law enforcement, unless they can show a "clear budgetary need." The idea that the states and cities should have to get permission from the U.S. government to make a budget decision is, of course, absolutely anathema to local rule. It's up to a community's citizens to determine how much money their police department should receive—not the U.S. Senate or the Department of Transportation.

Bonus video: ReasonTV on the importance of defending open carry rights in black communities to defend civil rights:


Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Steve Ott
1  seeder  Steve Ott    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Very interesting slant. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
3  Ronin2    2 weeks ago
Hannity, Fox, and Loeffler all represented this as evidence of the dangers of defunding police. Indeed, one young man with a gun (who seemed perfectly polite and respectful) told Fox he was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun because he didn't believe police officers would protect him, adding that cops were not going to be "allowed" in this space. Asked what he'd do if police rolled up and ordered him to drop his weapon, the man insisted he had the legal right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution to bear arms: "And at no point will I allow my right to be disturbed." Good for him!

Don't see what is wrong with that statement? 

told Fox he was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun because he didn't believe police officers would protect him, adding that cops were not going to be "allowed" in this space.

Funny, the left went apoplectic when it was armed right wingers trying to hold federal land and keep federal and state officers out. Now, you have an armed African American state that he will not allow police onto private property? Does he own the Wendy's store that was burned down? Did he have permission from the store owner to be there? Seems the left thinks they can move in and hold both private and public property whenever the hell they want.

Asked what he'd do if police rolled up and ordered him to drop his weapon, the man insisted he had the legal right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution to bear arms:

Yes, he does, up until the time he breaks the law. Which barring people from property is. Unless he is the owner of said Wendy's or has permission to be there from the owner.

Yes, the hypocrisy is quite glaring. On the left.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1  MUVA  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 weeks ago

It is light so bright I can see it from here.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
3.2  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 weeks ago
Yes, the hypocrisy is quite glaring.

And on the right. Guess you missed the part about Loeffler not speaking out about the whites openly carrying at the Michigan capitol. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Steve Ott @3.2    2 weeks ago

Were they threatening anyone at the Michigan capital? Were they threatening police? Were they stopping anyone from going anywhere or reaching anywhere? No, no they weren't. They had a proper permit to protest.  There were police there monitoring them.

Epic fucking fail! But you already knew that!

Next time try an apples to apples comparison like the right wingers I used the held federal land under gun point; and look at the way they were treated by both the federal government and law enforcement.

 
 
 
MUVA
4  MUVA    2 weeks ago

Hey some on the left call people that own guns nuts and act if owning gun makes you responsible for acts of violence.Since I am a black guy with guns and believe in the second amendment  I see no problem with them carrying a shot gun to protect themselves.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1  JBB  replied to  MUVA @4    2 weeks ago

The point you are twisting yourself in a knot to ignore is that your cohorts on the far right see not one thing wrong with hundreds of heavily armed alt-right militiamen occupying state capitals but lose their ever lovin minds whenever they see armed black men!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  JBB @4.1    2 weeks ago

but lose their ever lovin minds whenever they see armed black men!

Precisely.  The difference is crystal clear. Conservatives are scared of armed people of color. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.1    2 weeks ago
The point you are twisting yourself in a knot to ignore is that your cohorts on the far right see not one thing wrong with hundreds of heavily armed alt-right militiamen occupying state capitals but lose their ever lovin minds whenever they see armed black men!

BOTH sides are hypocritical.

You damn sure don't see anyone who criticized the people who were armed at protests to open their states back up saying anything about how bad it is that these blacks are armed.

Personally, carry ALL the guns you want. Telling police they can't go somewhere is crazy and I won't condone such stupidity.

As for the guy whining about the police protecting him, kind of hard for the police to do so when:

A. You don't or won't cooperate with police investigations.

B. You won't "allow" police in areas.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
Conservatives are scared of armed people of color. 

Are liberals scared of whites who are armed?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

No, but two scientific studies, one at the University College London, then confirmed at the University of Nebraska show that conservatives "fear more" due to having larger, more active Amygdala's, an organ in the brain.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

https://www.businessinsider.com/psychological-differences-between-conservatives-and-liberals-2018-2

This explains why campaigns courting republicans lean on ads with bears, sheep with glowing red eyes, and scary music.... They know it stimulates the fear response in those that lean conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalalean

The  amygdala  ( / ə ˈ m ɪ ɡ d ə l ə / ; plural:  amygdalae   / ə ˈ m ɪ ɡ d ə l i ,   - l /  or  amygdalas ; also  corpus amygdaloideum Latin  from  Greek ἀμυγδαλή amygdalē , 'almond', 'tonsil' [1] ) is one of two almond-shaped clusters of  nuclei  located deep and  medially  within the  temporal lobes  of the  brain  in complex  vertebrates , including humans. [2]  Shown to perform a primary role in the processing of  memory decision-making  and  emotional responses  (including fear, anxiety, and aggression), the amygdalae are considered part of the  limbic system . [3]  The term amygdala was first introduced by  Karl Friedrich Burdach  in 1822. [4]

In some respects conservatives can't help their fear because they are wired that way.  Its biology.

If you can find corresponding studies that refutes these two linked studies, please post them.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5  Sparty On    2 weeks ago
Once again, blacks openly carrying is "mob rule". Whites openly carrying in the Michigan capitol is crickets.

A bigger false equivalence i have never seen.

1.)  The protestors at the Michigan capital were exercising their right 100% legally.   These Atlanta guys were not

2.)  The Atlanta protestors were attempting to "protect" private property.   Not legal.   The Michigan guys weren't trying to protect anything.

3.)  Unlike the Michigan protestors, the Atlanta protestors stated their goal was to keep law enforcement out.   Not legal

4.)  One is public property, legal.   The other is private property, illegal as i'm sure the owner of the burnt down Wendys didn't ask for help as his business was already burned to the ground.

Honestly, media people who put crap like this out have zero shame and give journalism a shitty name.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
5.1  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  Sparty On @5    2 weeks ago
These Atlanta guys were not

You might want to check the laws before commenting on them. Open carry in Georgia is legal and they accept licenses from other state.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Steve Ott @5.1    2 weeks ago

Come on Steve..... Open carry is only for white people, cause only white people care about and are covered by the 2nd. 

 
 
 
Steve Ott
5.1.2  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

Ok, I give. You're right. The only 'mobs' white people make are at Walmart on Black Friday.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Steve Ott @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

BTW..... the Reason.TV video was spot on.  Glad you posted it.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
5.1.4  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

You are quite welcome.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Steve Ott @5.1    2 weeks ago

You might want to read the entire post.    I wasn’t commenting on the legality of open carry.    Read it again.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
5.1.6  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.5    2 weeks ago
These Atlanta guys were not

The above is what you said. The statute says they can. And no, it didn't take me but a few seconds to find the statute.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Steve Ott @5.1.6    2 weeks ago

Are you really having trouble grasping the entirety of what I’ve said or is this just a game you are playing?     Let’s see if I can simplify it for you.

Michigan protestors were on public property.    Legal.     Atlanta protestors were on private property.    Not legal unless requested by owners of private property.

Michigan protestors were not trying to keep anyone out.   Legal.     Atlanta protestors said their purpose was to keep law enforcement out.    Not legal

so are you done playing word games yet?

 
 
 
Steve Ott
5.1.8  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.7    2 weeks ago

I have no problem at all understanding your words. I do have a problem with your not posting anything that supports your position other than your own words. Point me to a statute or case law that supports your position.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Steve Ott @5.1.8    2 weeks ago

I'm not going to waste my time showing you well know law.   Everything i've posted is well known fact to even the most sophomoric of intellects.   Well .... with the exception of if the owner asked for the protection, which as stated i highly doubt since there was nothing there left to protect.   It was already all burned down by the mob.

Nah, you just want to play word games and argue, as you've got no valid point.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
5.1.10  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.9    2 weeks ago
you just want to play word games and argue,

No, I'm playing statute games. If you wish to discuss the legality or illegality of an act, you should know the relevant statutes. Since you obviously don't know the law of Georgia, your argument is null and void.

I posted the statute showing they have the absolute right to carry their weapons. You give nothing but bloviation in return.

You are the one playing word games.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
5.2  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  Sparty On @5    2 weeks ago

PRACTICES
PART 3 - CARRYING AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
§ 16-11-126 - Possession and carrying a concealed weapon; penalty for violating licensing requirement

O.C.G.A. 16-11-126 (2010)
16-11-126. Possession and carrying a concealed weapon; penalty for violating licensing requirement


(a) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a weapon or long gun on his or her property or inside his or her home, motor vehicle, or place of business without a valid weapons carry license.

(b) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a long gun without a valid weapons carry license, provided that if the long gun is loaded, it shall only be carried in an open and fully exposed manner.

(c) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry any handgun provided that it is enclosed in a case and unloaded.

(d) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun who is eligible for a weapons carry license may transport a handgun or long gun in any private passenger motor vehicle; provided, however, that private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135.

(e) Any person licensed to carry a handgun or weapon in any other state whose laws recognize and give effect to a license issued pursuant to this part shall be authorized to carry a weapon in this state, but only while the licensee is not a resident of this state; provided, however, that such licensee shall carry the weapon in compliance with the laws of this state.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Steve Ott @5.2    2 weeks ago

Hope you didn’t waste too much time looking that up since as noted above it wasn’t what I was commenting on.

And the folks trying to make this about race, that’s all on them.    Never once claimed minorities couldn’t own weapons legally, in fact I encourage it.

So that’s another massive fail there ...

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Steve Ott @5.2    2 weeks ago

Read the statement from your own damn article. No one is arguing against the moron's right to open carry.

What everyone is arguing is that he does not have the right to bar anyone, especially the police, from public or private property. Unless you can prove he had the owner's permission to be there, or is the owner himself; then he is violating the law!

Tne young man with a gun (who seemed perfectly polite and respectful) told Fox he was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun because he didn't believe police officers would protect him, adding that cops were not going to be "allowed" in this space. Asked what he'd do if police rolled up and ordered him to drop his weapon, the man insisted he had the legal right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution to bear arms: "And at no point will I allow my right to be disturbed." Good for him!

Guess the left doesn't feel the need to abide by the law and openly supports criminals. What a shock! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.2    2 weeks ago
Guess the left doesn't feel the need to abide by the law and openly supports criminals. What a shock!

Only abide by the laws they agree with, until they don't.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2.4  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.3    2 weeks ago

Worse they use a the law to punish their political rivals and then ignore real corruption.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
5.2.5  seeder  Steve Ott  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.2    2 weeks ago

That's your opinion, not necessarily fact. Point me to a statute or case law. Do some research to support your position. Until such time, I consider your opinion to be asinine and without thought.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Vic Eldred
The Magic Eight Ball
Ender
lady in black


72 visitors