- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When going to a protest, do you bring a firearm with you?
Posted on 1/25/26 at 10:51 pm to jafari rastaman
Posted on 1/25/26 at 10:51 pm to jafari rastaman
If your plan is to protest from a safe distance peacefully, carry as many firearms as picket signs and scream your heart out. That's your right as an American.
But if your plan is to rub elbows with the Feds being an "observer" that's actively in their faces and disrupting their business, probably a bad idea to carry.
It's not illegal in its own right, but gives off the vibe of having bad intentions whether that's what you intended or not. It automatically puts any law enforcement on edge, especially when the local government has made you - as LEO - the enemy and encouraged acts against you.
It's human nature in that instance to feel like the guy bringing that firearm is carrying for a nefarious reason, even if his reason is innocent. Just don't even risk it when the reward is always something awful no matter how it ends. What innocent reasons are there to be carrying when you're planning on getting involved in a very direct intervention of law enforcement?
Peacefully protest all day, be rightfully angry at what happened in Minnesota and demand change. But the parties involved on both sides need to change, the blame isn't solely on one side or the other. Going out and interfering with the poor schlubs on the ground is doing nothing but asking for trouble, demand change from their superiors and those in local/state government that have created the pressure cooker.
There's a reason this is only happening in one place. Consider that.
1
Posted on 1/25/26 at 10:54 pm to jafari rastaman
I don’t protest. In most of these cases, I’m over a thousand miles from where the incident took place, and even with cameras everywhere, we will still never know exactly what happened, who saw what, who heard what, and the tension level of those involved.
I suppose if I felt the government was truly interested in re-educating everyone, throwing random people in a camp, and making us all wear the same clothes, I’d protest.
I suppose if I felt the government was truly interested in re-educating everyone, throwing random people in a camp, and making us all wear the same clothes, I’d protest.
Posted on 1/25/26 at 10:56 pm to RazorBroncs
quote:
RazorBroncs
I think you’ve summed up the entire situation pretty well.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:16 am to fightin tigers
quote:Your problem is that you keep putting words in other people's mouths rather than listening to what is actually being said. But then that likely arrives along with your daily talking points.
He was disarmed by the government and shot in the back and somehow you can't even look and say...
But since you seem to want my opinion, there is a complicated causal chain here.
First is getting into a physical fight with law enforcement when you're claiming to be peaceably assembling.
Second is wearing a gun while fighting police personnel.
Third is reaching to your waistband while fighting police personnel - even if you were just disarmed of the gun which agents located during the melee - especially when most of them could not see that the gun was removed.
Fourth is having a Sig which may or may not have had an "uncommanded discharge" while being removed from the area of hand to hand struggle.
Finally, agents need to account for every round and how the perp's sidearm was handled.
There are things to consider all around.
For the average citizen, not touching or blocking law enforcement personnel is the most useful.
But feel free to act as foolishly as pleases you. Maybe you too can earn a pretty good award.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:19 am to jafari rastaman
I hear there are threads like this on the poli all the time.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:41 am to jafari rastaman
No, you don't.
You don't bring any weapon or items that can be used to escalate aggression.
If you are really there to protest for your ideals, then you should expect to be arrested, and should allow yourself to be arrested without resistance.
If you truly believe that you are on the right side of history, then the only thing you need to bring with you are those ideals, and you should be willing to go to jail for them.
But these "protesters" aren't standing on ideals, they're looking for a fight.
They're hoping to recreate the fervor created by the Boston Massacre. A call to action.
Problem is that the majority of the country doesn't agree with the reasons they are sacrificing lives for. And they are also extremely insufferable and unlikable as people.
You don't bring any weapon or items that can be used to escalate aggression.
If you are really there to protest for your ideals, then you should expect to be arrested, and should allow yourself to be arrested without resistance.
If you truly believe that you are on the right side of history, then the only thing you need to bring with you are those ideals, and you should be willing to go to jail for them.
But these "protesters" aren't standing on ideals, they're looking for a fight.
They're hoping to recreate the fervor created by the Boston Massacre. A call to action.
Problem is that the majority of the country doesn't agree with the reasons they are sacrificing lives for. And they are also extremely insufferable and unlikable as people.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:53 am to magildachunks
Essentially it boils to this: if they really wanted to change the immigration situation for the immigrants they claim to be fighting for, they'd be protesting on Capital Hill, confronting the lawmakers to change the laws.
But that's not what they want. They want a fight, to start a revolution or anarchistic chaos. So instead of protesting those who can actually change the laws in place (that they supposedly don't agree with), they are bringing aggression and attacking the ones enforcing the laws in place.
It's not about ideals and rights of men, it's about enticing the populace to destroy the system.
I wonder who the leaders really are that are hoping to step into the leadership roles for the "good of the people"?
Who are the Castro's and Lenin's?
But that's not what they want. They want a fight, to start a revolution or anarchistic chaos. So instead of protesting those who can actually change the laws in place (that they supposedly don't agree with), they are bringing aggression and attacking the ones enforcing the laws in place.
It's not about ideals and rights of men, it's about enticing the populace to destroy the system.
I wonder who the leaders really are that are hoping to step into the leadership roles for the "good of the people"?
Who are the Castro's and Lenin's?
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 1:54 am
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:27 am to SixthAndBarone
Bundy ranch standoff, 2014. This time it was right wing protesters and a Democratic administration.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:44 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Bundy ranch standoff, 2014. This time it was right wing protesters and a Democratic administration.
That wasn't a protest. And they didn't actively approach law enforcement with a concealed weapon to aggressively antagonize them and try to physically impede them from doing their job.
They had unconcealed weapons and dared law enforcement to approach them and try to do their job.
Big difference.
At Bundy Ranch, law enforcement was given a choice whether to engage or not. In Minnesota, law enforcement was only given the choice to react to being engaged.
ETA: At least you used a good example for this and not Ruby Ridge. Just like Minnesota, law enforcement there was also in the right.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 3:47 am
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:10 am to magildachunks
quote:
That wasn't a protest. And they didn't actively approach law enforcement with a concealed weapon to aggressively antagonize them and try to physically impede them from doing their job.
Looks an awful lot like a protest to me. As for who is more aggressive, I'll note that this guy appears to be sighted in on something or someone, while Pretti never unholstered his weapon.
Bottom line, it was a confrontation with law enforcement and these guys brought weapons. I just wondered if OP's thesis applied to them too, or if, like most things these days, it depends on whether it's your tribe or the other guys.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:17 am to jafari rastaman
The only time I'm not carrying is when it isnt legal or I plan on drinking any amount. I stay away from locations/situations that I think I would need to carry.
That being said, being an idiot isnt illegal.
Eta: dont really know what to think about the Pretti thing based on the vids ive seen. Havent seen one clear enough to really tell what is going on.
That being said, being an idiot isnt illegal.
Eta: dont really know what to think about the Pretti thing based on the vids ive seen. Havent seen one clear enough to really tell what is going on.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 4:35 am
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:24 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Bottom line, it was a confrontation with law enforcement and these guys brought weapons. I just wondered if OP's thesis applied to them too, or if, like most things these days, it depends on whether it's your tribe or the other guys.
Most on here would only accuse me of being a soyboy/bleeding heart liberal. I'm saying right now that the "victim" was in the wrong and it was a good shoot.
The Bundy Standoff differs in a lot of ways, but the most relevant is that they didn't conceal their weapons and they didn't approach the law enforcement officers.
And they also never claimed to be "peaceful" protesters.
Bringing a weapon to a protest nullifies that claim. Approaching law enforcement nullifies that claim. Confronting law enforcement nullifies that claim. Purposely trying to impede law enforcement from performing their duties nullifies that claim.
The Minnesota Agitators are not protesting, they are looking for a fight. And that's the difference between them and the Bundy participants. The Bundy supporters were willing to fight, but didn't want to fight.
Both were in the wrong according to the law as written. But only one group's goal is to escalate.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:25 am to Loup
quote:
That being said, being an idiot isnt illegal.
True.
But you should also be responsible for the consequences of being an idiot, even if you get killed because of it.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:40 am to magildachunks
I just see a lot of people who used to call the feds jack booted thugs suddenly thinking they can do no wrong. It seems like nobody has any core principles any more beyond raw tribalism.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:54 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
just see a lot of people who used to call the feds jack booted thugs suddenly thinking they can do no wrong. It seems like nobody has any core principles any more beyond raw tribalism.
I get that.
But as an "Independent" (basically a Centrist), I believe that you have to take each issue on its own, and not lump it in to some overarching theme.
The Illegal immigrant problem has gotten out of hand. Trump is using his power to enforce the law. He didn't write the law, and he can't create laws. He only has the power to enforce the laws that are on the books. Maybe his goal is to reform immigration law, and this is the nuclear option to force Congress to address the issue. I don't know.
I do know this: Obama enforced the immigration laws much more extreme than Trump is doing. But nobody "protested" that. The media didn't cover that. He wasn't vilified for his enforcement of that law.
Just like the drone strikes. Obama enacted more drone strikes than every President combined with the ability to use drones. But he's not labeled a war monger or war criminal.
Like I said though: the difference between the Bundy and Minnesota "Protesters" is how they dealt with law enforcement. One put the choice of escalation in law enforcement's hands, the other makes the choice for them.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 5:25 am to jafari rastaman
When protesting heavily armed federal agents …. No way. You are going to be heavily out gunned so it’s pretty much either useless or a death sentence if I have to pull. That being said, just because I am legally cancelled carry is no reason for federal agents to shoot me.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 5:27 am to Trapped in time
quote:
That being said, just because I am legally cancelled carry is no reason for federal agents to shoot me.
I mean...if you're cancelled carried, and you're carrying...that might be a reason
Posted on 1/26/26 at 8:42 am to Salmon
quote:I didn't dv, but personally I wouldn't bring a firearm to a protest because possessing a firearm at a protest significantly escalates situations by increasing the likelihood of violence, with armed demonstrations being nearly six times more likely to turn destructive. Guns, often present due to counter-protester intimidation, turn tense, passionate gatherings into potentially deadly scenarios, directly contributing to injuries and fatalities.
I wish the people downvoting this would provide an answer as to why they wouldn't bring a weapon
Posted on 1/26/26 at 9:22 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
wouldn't go at all if I expected to need it.
This. Too many bad variables. As a non cop I’d be too nervous if I had a CHL in a place where guns may be everywhere.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 9:23 am to jafari rastaman
Next one will be the first one, so I'll have to check back in later.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News