Civil War-again?

[Heirbyadoption]

Would you agree it would be good to disciple people not to bring a loaded firearm (particularly, a model of gun that is notorious for having defects which make it randomly fire) to go confront federal officers?

I would. I also think it would be good to disciple federal officers not to bring loaded firearms to protests.

Jim, would that also count (discouraging federal officers to carry loaded firearms) if the protest comes TO the federal officers while those officers are acting in the pursuit of their duty, not just when federal officers go TO a protest?

[temporal1]

(i think) this topic is related to the OP and subject line:

May 2025 / I think we are in trouble
https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=7759

[Bootstrap]

Would you agree it would be good to disciple people not to bring a loaded firearm (particularly, a model of gun that is notorious for having defects which make it randomly fire) to go confront federal officers?

I would. I also think it would be good to disciple federal officers not to bring loaded firearms to protests.

Jim, would that also count (discouraging federal officers to carry loaded firearms) if the protest comes TO the federal officers while those officers are acting in the pursuit of their duty, not just when federal officers go TO a protest?

Protests are not riots. Non-violent protests should not be treated as riots. People who are merely observing and recording what happens should not be arrested or shot.

I would be very pleased if guns were not allowed at protests. That would be a good law.

At Charlottesville and various other places, protesters were wearing guns visibly and carrying weapons, claiming their 2nd Amendment right protected this. Some people insisted this was their right. Some of the same people applauded Kyle Rittenhouse for bringing a gun to a riot, openly carrying a rifle, then shooting people. I think this kind of open carry is also an open threat, it sends a message.

Alex Pretti did not show his gun, did not use his gun, did not reach for his gun. They did not know he had a gun until they had him on the ground. They got rid of his gun before they shot him - at that point, the gun was certainly no danger. It's hard to argue that he was shot because he was a danger. And some of the same people who are saying that seemed to approve of the people in the previous paragraph, saying they were not a danger.

I would like to see a consistent position that does not depend on who has the guns. I doubt that Republican states would want the Democrats to send paramilitary units to their cities. Dialing down the threat level is important.

[Valerie]

[quote=Heirbyadoption post_id=295422 time=<a href="tel:1770130822">1770130822</a> user_id=31214]
[quote=JimFoxvog post_id=294565 time=<a href="tel:1769556679">1769556679</a> user_id=31360][quote=JohnH post_id=294522 time=<a href="tel:1769545957">1769545957</a> user_id=31176]Would you agree it would be good to disciple people not to bring a loaded firearm (particularly, a model of gun that is notorious for having defects which make it randomly fire) to go confront federal officers?

I would. I also think it would be good to disciple federal officers not to bring loaded firearms to protests.
[/quote]Jim, would that also count (discouraging federal officers to carry loaded firearms) if the protest comes TO the federal officers while those officers are acting in the pursuit of their duty, not just when federal officers go TO a protest?
[/quote]

Protests are not riots. Non-violent protests should not be treated as riots. People who are merely observing and recording what happens should not be arrested or shot.

I would be very pleased if guns were not allowed at protests. That would be a good law.

At Charlottesville and various other places, protesters were wearing guns visibly and carrying weapons, claiming their 2nd Amendment right protected this. Some people insisted this was their right. Some of the same people applauded Kyle Rittenhouse for bringing a gun to a riot, openly carrying a rifle, then shooting people. I think this kind of open carry is also an open threat, it sends a message.

Alex Pretti did not show his gun, did not use his gun, did not reach for his gun. They did not know he had a gun until they had him on the ground. They got rid of his gun before they shot him - at that point, the gun was certainly no danger. It's hard to argue that he was shot because he was a danger. And some of the same people who are saying that seemed to approve of the people in the previous paragraph, saying they were not a danger.

I would like to see a consistent position that does not depend on who has the guns. I doubt that Republican states would want the Democrats to send paramilitary units to their cities. Dialing down the threat level is important.
[/quote]

I would. I also think it would be good to disciple federal officers not to bring loaded firearms to protests.

Jim, would that also count (discouraging federal officers to carry loaded firearms) if the protest comes TO the federal officers while those officers are acting in the pursuit of their duty, not just when federal officers go TO a protest?

Protests are not riots. Non-violent protests should not be treated as riots. People who are merely observing and recording what happens should not be arrested or shot.

I would be very pleased if guns were not allowed at protests. That would be a good law.

At Charlottesville and various other places, protesters were wearing guns visibly and carrying weapons, claiming their 2nd Amendment right protected this. Some people insisted this was their right. Some of the same people applauded Kyle Rittenhouse for bringing a gun to a riot, openly carrying a rifle, then shooting people. I think this kind of open carry is also an open threat, it sends a message.

Alex Pretti did not show his gun, did not use his gun, did not reach for his gun. They did not know he had a gun until they had him on the ground. They got rid of his gun before they shot him - at that point, the gun was certainly no danger. It's hard to argue that he was shot because he was a danger. And some of the same people who are saying that seemed to approve of the people in the previous paragraph, saying they were not a danger.

I would like to see a consistent position that does not depend on who has the guns. I doubt that Republican states would want the Democrats to send paramilitary units to their cities. Dialing down the threat level is important.

They don’t have to send them to our cities, aside from what happened January 6 when our President commanded a “peaceful protest” (and we see how things can turn) you did not see Republicans destroying property, screaming, carrying on like I constantly see the lefts protests since BLM.
Honestly Boot- your news sources must really hide a lot of filming of the RIOTS not peaceful protests. Throwing bricks, throwing fireworks, shouting to the top of lungs, blocking with cars, I’m telling you what I see is nothing short of demonic & I mean that with all my heart. How are you not seeing it??
Must be your news sources.

[JohnH]

I’m not sure how current events in January is “History”, but here goes.

Alex Pretti did not show his gun, did not use his gun, did not reach for his gun. They did not know he had a gun until they had him on the ground. They got rid of his gun before they shot him - at that point, the gun was certainly no danger. It's hard to argue that he was shot because he was a danger. And some of the same people who are saying that seemed to approve of the people in the previous paragraph, saying they were not a danger.

When the police find someone armed, they assume they are armed with a second firearm or other weapon until they can be patted down for weapons.

This was no different.

I would like to see a consistent position that does not depend on who has the guns. I doubt that Republican states would want the Democrats to send paramilitary units to their cities. Dialing down the threat level is important.

I’m not sure why you’ve decided to call federal agents “paramilitary units”.

Democratic administrations can and have sent federal agents to Republican states.

[Bootstrap]

Alex Pretti did not show his gun, did not use his gun, did not reach for his gun. They did not know he had a gun until they had him on the ground. They got rid of his gun before they shot him - at that point, the gun was certainly no danger. It's hard to argue that he was shot because he was a danger. And some of the same people who are saying that seemed to approve of the people in the previous paragraph, saying they were not a danger.

When the police find someone armed, they assume they are armed with a second firearm or other weapon until they can be patted down for weapons.

This was no different.

Nonsense.

They had already restrained him and patted him down. That's how they found the concealed weapon in the first place. Shooting someone they have already restrained and patted down is extremely rare. That's why the videos are so important, they are very clear about these things.

Here's the part of my post you did not respond to:

Protests are not riots. Non-violent protests should not be treated as riots. People who are merely observing and recording what happens should not be arrested or shot.

I would be very pleased if guns were not allowed at protests. That would be a good law.

At Charlottesville and various other places, protesters were wearing guns visibly and carrying weapons, claiming their 2nd Amendment right protected this. Some people insisted this was their right. Some of the same people applauded Kyle Rittenhouse for bringing a gun to a riot, openly carrying a rifle, then shooting people. I think this kind of open carry is also an open threat, it sends a message.

I think you were one of those people. Why is it OK for protesters to carry guns openly, clearly intending to threaten others by doing so, but horribly dangerous to have a concealed carry gun that you never reach for?

Suppose police had shot the open-carry protesters at these other rallies because guns are a threat. Would you defend them for that?

[Bootstrap]

I’m not sure why you’ve decided to call federal agents “paramilitary units”.

Because:

1. They are paramilitary units. We can start a new thread to discuss how that is defined, if this is not clear and obvious.
2. The problem is not that they are federal agents.

When the federal government deploys militarized units into a city over the objections of the governor and mayor, openly threatening civilians, this is not ordinary law enforcement. It is a deliberate display of power and intimidation.

Wartime equipment, military-style uniforms, and anonymity is part of the show. So are the promises of absolute immunity and the clear violations of people's basic rights. It is meant to intimidate, to signal dominance, and to define these cities as a battlefield. "Look what we can do to you!"

I think that's the whole reason this thread is called "Civil War-again?"

They are using social media and friendly media to celebrate this kind of military threat, boasting about their ability to do this. The visuals in their videos look like something straight out of a war movie. And videos by news agencies and bystanders do too.

Law enforcement is not supposed to be a paramilitary invasion. This is exactly the kind of centralized power the Constitution was written to prevent. Democracies depend on persuasion, not intimidation. Some people seem to be saying the real problem is that some people are saying there should be limits on what the President is allowed to do, implying that his authority as Command In Chief is absolute. The people who wrote the Constitution warned us against that. Wisely, I think.

Using the word "paramilitary" helps us see what is right in front of our noses. And not just in Minnesota.

[temporal1]

For those interested in this topic’s OP and subject line, without speculation or projection:

”Civil War-again?”
For awhile I’ve been sensing we may be headed for civil war- in my own lifetime I’ve never seen this country so divided & vehemently so. It even works its way into a Mennonite forum.

After that recent video of the Democrats undermining Trump as Commander in Chief, this morning while we were out of town I learned a piece of our history during the Civil War. It was a sign in a town square (Mt. Vernon OH)

Apparently Democrats undermining a Republican president was done during the Civil War against President Lincoln & it was taken very seriously.

The Copperheads: Led by this man:

https://allthatsinteresting.com/clement-vallandigham

https://www.google.com/search?q=copperh ... no_sw_cr=1

My brother, a history guy, never knew about this piece of history -I guess I just found it so interesting that I learned about it today while this video thing in the way it’s being handled is on my mind. I guess there’s nothing new under the sun.

From the first OP link:

Clement Vallandigham always believed in predestination.

“I may, however, be mistaken,” he said even on his deathbed, “but I am a firm believer in that
good old Presbyterian doctrine of predestination.”

Of course, the reason that he was on his deathbed was that he’d just accidentally shot himself while in the process of demonstrating how another man may have accidentally shot himself. .. ..

[Bootstrap]

For those interested in this topic’s OP and subject line, without speculation or projection:

”Civil War-again?”
For awhile I’ve been sensing we may be headed for civil war- in my own lifetime I’ve never seen this country so divided & vehemently so. It even works its way into a Mennonite forum.

After that recent video of the Democrats undermining Trump as Commander in Chief ...

Yes, that's what I was referring to. But from a different perspective. That's why I wrote this:

Law enforcement is not supposed to be a paramilitary invasion. This is exactly the kind of centralized power the Constitution was written to prevent. Democracies depend on persuasion, not intimidation. Some people seem to be saying the real problem is that some people are saying there should be limits on what the President is allowed to do, implying that his authority as Command In Chief is absolute. The people who wrote the Constitution warned us against that. Wisely, I think.

Using the word "paramilitary" helps us see what is right in front of our noses. And not just in Minnesota.

We are very much talking about the same question: Does the President have the right to send paramilitary units to occupy cities, against the wishes of the governor and mayor, threatening and intimidating people? If they kill people, are they accountable to the law? Are the 1st Amendment and the 4th Amendment suspended, imposing some kind of martial law?

This is not normal law enforcement.

Conservatives used to warn about this kind of thing.

[temporal1]

i’m looking forward to Valerie’s response-direction.

Meanwhile, i understand the two shot in Minnesota have been determined to be homicides by the coroner(s).
The courts will receive reports, then rule according to whatever laws apply. Appeals are common.

i haven’t been to one day of law school, i don’t have full facts of either case. i won’t anticipate the rulings.

God judges in eternity.