NY Times Finally Manages To Work Firearms Into The Charlottesville Narrative

It’s taken the editorial board of the NY Times almost a week to finally realize “hey, people were carrying guns at the rally!!!!!”, and they’ve decided to be Offended, just as you think

The Gunmen at ‘Free Speech’ Rallies

Even before violence erupted in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, city residents and the police anxiously watched the arrival of self-styled militias — swaggering gangs of armed civilians in combat fatigues — standing guard over the protest by white supremacists and other racist agitators against the removal of a Confederate statue.

Who were these men, counterprotesters asked as the riflemen took up watchful positions around the protest site. Police? National Guard? The Virginia National Guard had to send out an alert that its members wore a distinctive “MP” patch. This was so people could tell government-sanctioned protectors from unauthorized militias that have been posingas law-and-order squads at right-wing rallies.

Would those be the government-sanctioned protectors who, for whatever reason, backed off when conflict arose?

In brandishing weapons in Charlottesville, the militiamen added an edge of intimidation to a protest that was ostensibly called as an exercise in free speech. By flaunting their right to bear arms, they made a stark statement in a looming public confrontation. “You would have thought they were an army,” noted Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, one of 45 states that allow the open carrying of rifles in public to some degree, most without a permit required.

The limits of that freedom are being increasingly tested by jury-rigged militias at demonstrations, public meetings and other political flash points around the nation. These strutting vigilantes have become such a threatening presence that government should rein them in to allow for a truly free exchange of ideas.

The Times is attempting to apply the Heckler’s Veto, in which their Rights, which the NYTEB acknowledges, should be taken away because violence may ensue. And, interestingly, they note the looming public confrontation. If Antifa and all the leftist comrades weren’t so damned violent, there wouldn’t be a problem.

No shots were fired in the Charlottesville violence, but with more alt-right rallies planned the danger that these militia members’ loaded weapons might be used increases. The armed groups mostly back up right-wing protests, although there was one militia in Charlottesville claiming to protect peaceful counterdemonstrators at a church. (The protest also drew “antifa” — anti-fascist — counterprotesters on the political left, ready to brawl with fists and sticks against those on the other side.)

“No shots were fired”, despite all the violence from Antifa, which the times even notes shows up ready commit felony assault. BTW, why no mention of making sure that Antifa doesn’t bring baseball bats, chains, tire irons, batteries in socks, etc? BTW, there were no shots fired.

The critical question is how to protect peoples’ free speech in the presence of armed opponents. The gun lobby has worked to pass laws in Virginia and other states to prevent local governments from passing restrictions on open carry. But legal researchers point to elements in state laws and Supreme Court decisions saying that the right to bear arms in public is not absolute and must stop short of inducing fear in others.

So, because someone else gets all squeamish because they saw a gun, people should have their Constitutional Rights taken away? What if a bunch of us decided that the editorials from the NY Times were causing fear? Would that mean that the Times could be forced to stop printing them?

Let me note two things: first, the Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists are disgusting. So is Antifa and their crowd. Second, interestingly, the former group is often told to have empty magazines in their weapons. Why? Good question. Back when Ron Paul was running for president in 2008, he was linked to Don Black of Stromfront. I spent a lot of time looking to see what these people stood for, reading their stuff, just like I do with other groups of all stripes. They are quite often told by the higher-ups to have no bullets in the magazines, and even to have no magazines in the weapons.

Why? Because they know that people may very well start violence with the groups. That they will be spit on, have stuff thrown at them, and taunted. They are told to not be the first one to throw a punch, and, if it escalates, they don’t want to be the ones firing guns. At least first. Despite all the violence from Antifa, despite the threats from the bats and weapons carried by Antifa, no shots were fired. They’re still despicable people, but, no shots fired.

Regardless, the Times is simply using this incident to push a reduction in people’s Constitutional Rights. As usual.

Crossed at Right Wing News.