re: Ca$h Patel Sounds Like David Hogg…

quote:

---

As soon as he started committing the crime of interfering with federal law enforcement he was no longer legally carrying, his type of "protesting" thus made it illegal to carry a weapon.

---

I made it clear in my original comment that Pretti’s legal right to carry a firearm did not give him the right to interfere with the legitimate duties of law enforcement. Yet — as claimed by Patel — carrying a weapon to a protest in and of itself was not a crime.

quote:

---

“You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple.”

---

The problem I have with many of my fellow 2nd amendment supporters is the complete lack of common sense that infects a large swath of you. It is the sense of entitlement and empowerment that a huge chunk of you have that is fricking dangerous.. No where in his statement did he say it was illegal. He used the word “cannot” bring a firearm and multiple magazines to any sort of protest as in it defies common sense to bring a weapon into any sort of emotionally charged atmosphere.

Your responsibilities when you CC go up, not down. You have a responsibility to conduct yourself in a proper, responsible manner when you carry a firearm. Intentionally arming yourself and injecting yourself into a situation where you act out and act aggressively is not conducting yourself in a responsible manner. I don’t give a single flying frick how many CC permits he had or if God himself signed them, he repeatedly acted like a damn deranged lunatic on multiple occasions. He was on a path to get himself shot and killed whether it was last week or 6 weeks from now.

wrong, “You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple.” So, when his sort of protesting was to interfere with law enforcement, then he can not bring a fire arm. what patel is saying is pretty clear according to what you posted. No where does patel say you can not bring a weapon to a protest, he said you can not bring a weapon to "any kind of protest you want". you seem to want to change what he said now so that you can cry about something he didnt say

Ehh these aren’t protestors. They think they are fighting Nazis.

also rittenhouse wasnt illegally protesting, so even more reason that the two situations have nothing to do with each other

quote:

---

No where does patel say you can not bring a weapon to a protest, he said you can not bring a weapon to "any kind of protest you want".

---

But you can, unless you want disregard the "shall not be infringed" part.

If you want to argue there should be restrictions on firearms then go for it, but you're wrong.

What law did he break using the gun? It was purchased legally. He never brandished. He never used it assault someone. It wasn't a no-gun zone. He didn't use it to intimidate or threaten someone.

He had it on his person and ICE removed it. Was it a shitty gun capable of random discharge? Maybe. Did he shoot it? No, best video I've seen shows it discharging it well after the agent removed it. Even if it did though, he didn't deserve to die.

Was he illegally protesting when he spat on officers, kicked their car, and interfered with operations? If you say yes to this then you agree he was illegally carrying a fire arm, it is illegal to carry a fire arm while you are committing a crime. Then you also agree with Patel, because an illegal protest falls under "any kind of protest that you want". Now if you think you should be able to carry a gun while you are committing crimes, then you disagree, but thats not the law.

quote:

---

where in his statement did he say it was illegal. He used the word “cannot” bring a firearm and multiple magazines to any sort of protest as in it defies common sense to bring a weapon into any sort of emotionally charged atmosphere.

---

Exactly. But the OP is a total moron

quote:

---

The problem I have with many of my fellow 2nd amendment supporters is the complete lack of common sense that infects a large swath of you. It is the sense of entitlement and empowerment that a huge chunk of you have that is fricking dangerous.. No where in his statement did he say it was illegal. He used the word “cannot” bring a firearm and multiple magazines to any sort of protest as in it defies common sense to bring a weapon into any sort of emotionally charged atmosphere.

Your responsibilities when you CC go up, not down. You have a responsibility to conduct yourself in a proper, responsible manner when you carry a firearm. Intentionally arming yourself and injecting yourself into a situation where you act out and act aggressively is not conducting yourself in a responsible manner. I don’t give a single flying frick how many CC permits he had or if God himself signed them, he repeatedly acted like a damn deranged lunatic on multiple occasions. He was on a path to get himself shot and killed whether it was last week or 6 weeks from now.

---

I agree that responsible firearm ownership requires careful judgment, and carrying a gun to a protest should be done with extreme prudence. Yet that’s a wholly separate discussion from whether the act itself is illegal, and it’s important to differentiate between the two to avoid conflating the issues.

There’s a difference between discussing the wisdom of carrying a firearm in such situations and implying that carrying a weapon to a protest is in and of itself unlawful or indicative of malicious intent. If Patel’s intent was to discuss the potential dangers of carrying a firearm in an emotionally charged environment, he should have said EXACTLY that.