Replies

Responsible people with guns are just that. They typically don't scream and yell and toss rocks. They are responsible. And the threshold of violence goes up quite a bit when one is armed. I have known people to get in fist fights over words. That is an unwise thing to do when armed.

I imagine that some on the BLM side of things understood that as well. The guns that the cowboys and the militia and the wives and daughters had were not for show. They were for their protection if so needed.

It would not surprise me that at some time in the future the Feds will need to install provocateurs into the people's ranks in order to fire the first shot.

Like the reports of snipers at Kent State. When no tangible evidence existed for that.

Hmm. Seems like when a group of Feds IS facing an enemy with known or presumed snipers, they are less willing to fight.

Well, during the Vietnam protests there were agitators who were specifically trying to provoke authorities into over reacting, and mainstream media who were trying to hype the protesters, just like they do today.

And we also had people who were deliberately trying to start riots.So Kent State today would likely be a blood bath 10 times worse.

Government authorities armed to the teeth with military equipment, gear, and snipers have no business being used against peaceful protesters. That's what the riot gear is for.

However, Boston demonstrated that we have indeed chosen a path a militarized type police state.