After Charlottesville, Open Carry Is Now A ‘Loophole’… VIDEO

By Jeff Knox : Opinion

Ban Open Carry New York Times
Ban Open Carry New York Times
Firearms Coalition
Firearms Coalition

Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)-  Opponents of gun rights are now using the horror and stupidity of the Charlottesville protests to declare open carry of firearms a “loophole,” which of course must be closed posthaste.

Demonstrators in Charlottesville assaulted each other with rocks, bottles, sticks, clubs, chemical agents, and hands and feet in the area around the “Unite the Right” rally, but no one fired a gun.

After the rally had been broken up, a demonstrator drove a car through a crowd, killing one woman, and injuring many others, but still, no gun was used. These facts are irrelevant to those opposed to individual rights though, as they point to Charlottesville and demand an end to open carry during political rallies – which they say “chills” other people's free speech rights – and a ban on concealed carry during such events, because… “Guns.”

We've seen this sort of fear-mongering for political gain play out in the past.

California enacted laws against open carry after the Black Panther Party staged an armed march on the state capitol. Again, no one was shot or threatened, but the group's decision to legally display their arms served as the justification for passage of carry prohibitions in California and elsewhere, and contributed to passage of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

It's worth noting that among the most outspoken proponents of these restrictions on rights are the very people who bear the most responsibility for the events in Charlottesville going so terribly wrong: Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, and Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer.

The First Amendment can be a very uncomfortable thing. The core of the right to free speech – especially political speech – boils down to the statement that used to appear at the top of many newspaper editorial pages: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The concept is simple at the theoretical level, but gets complicated in the real world. People opposed to certain speech, whether it be burning a U.S. flag, or spouting racist views, like to point out that the First Amendment only applies to government, and does not require individuals to tolerate “hateful” speech. That's true, but the government has an obligation to not only “allow” free speech, but to protect it as well. No one has the right to use force to squelch free speech, particularly in a public space. And the government has a sacred obligation to guard that right, regardless of how repugnant or hurtful that speech may be.

In the case of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, the government not only failed in their obligation to protect the free speech rights of the rally organizers and attendees, it looks like they intentionally conspired to allow those rights to be assaulted and suppressed.

Several months ago, organizers of the rally applied for, and received all of the necessary permits to legally hold their rally. Later, government officials tried to cancel those permits, but their efforts were blocked by a federal judge. The local and state government knew that the views of many involved in the rally were extremely unpopular, and would undoubtedly draw counter-protesters. They also knew that protests against groups much less controversial than this one, had been met with significant violence in recent months. The obligation of the mayor and governor was to protect the rights of the rally attendees, and to keep the peace.

Not only did they fail in their obligation to protect speech in the public square, they set the stage to guarantee failure, and to invite violence.

The number one rule in situations like this is to keep the factions separated, but authorities allowed counter-protesters to congregate right up to the minimal barrier surrounding the park where the rally was to be held. Rally attendees were forced to run a gauntlet of protesters in order to get into the park, and police did little to protect them from protesters, or protesters from them, as they made their way to the rally. As violence began to break out before the rally, police retreated, ostensibly to don riot gear (which they curiously weren't already wearing) leaving the warring factions to do battle. Then, apparently on orders from the governor, the legally permitted rally, which hadn't officially started yet, was declared an “unlawful assembly” and the police in their riot gear marched out, not to push back the protesters who were assaulting the legally permitted rally, but to push the rally attendees out of the park, into the streets full of protesters.

Who could have guessed that this wouldn't end well?

The rally attendees were not openly carrying guns, but there were two factions of “militia” openly carrying firearms. One group was a combined “patriot militia” of about 35 people (which interestingly included at least one African American and at least one openly gay person). This group disavowed the views of both sides, saying they were only there to protect people and defend free speech. The other “militia” group was a contingent of about 20 people from a communist organization called Redneck Revolt, closely associated with the liberal John Brown Gun Clubs. They were openly associated with the counter-protesters, and provided security at their staging area in another nearby park.

Leftist Hate Group : Redneck Revolt Brought Guns
Leftist Hate Group : Redneck Revolt Brought Guns

Both “militia” groups conducted themselves professionally, and even though they were assaulted repeatedly, the “patriot militia” was credited with preventing much violence and rendering assistance to injured people from both sides. No one was shot or even threatened.

When a Black Lives Matter supporter assassinated 5 police officers in Dallas, the media and politicians insisted that his actions shouldn't reflect on the group as a whole, regardless of their inflammatory rhetoric, which often calls for the killing of police officers.

When an accused white supremacist ran a car into a crowd in Charlottesville, the media and politicians blame everyone to the right of center, and call for sweeping new gun control.

Why would anyone think there is a double-standard in this country?

Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War
Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

  • 108 thoughts on “After Charlottesville, Open Carry Is Now A ‘Loophole’… VIDEO

    1. I said this before, the fact that the armed people did not fire a shot is very impressive. Their ability to keep cool while being tantalized and hit with objects show that gun carrying people are more sensible than the liberals that were hired to cause a very bad situation. Regardless of what you call them, they had a permit and kept their cool. Only the media can make them look like bad guys. This country has raised some really sick people.

    2. Tracy,
      When someone asks you what’s in your safe the only correct answer is “none of your business.” Although I must admit it’s impressive, but still – none of your business!

      1. Yeah
        But Vanns40 was being such an butt, I wanted to shut him up.

        Anyway, the list is on my insurance, the ATF probably didn’t destroy the background checks, so they have it too, and as long as I stay on the right side of the law, I figure what the heck.

    3. Just look at Venezuela. When the dictatorship banned privately owned firearms who turned at events with them. The pro dictatorship mobs. The same thing that is happening there is now occurring here. Hussein and his so called democratic party are working with Cuba and the Russians to end our Republic. They are Winning! The sad thing is the Republicans led by McCain and McConnell are actively assisting them.

    4. If Black Lives Matter was holding a protest in that park, and white supremacists showed up in a violent counter-protest, does anyone believe that the Governor and Police would have acted in the same manner?

      No, the supremacists would have been sicked upon by the police at the order of the Governor. Arrests made, and examples made of them.

    5. The presence of militia armed with AR-15 did nothing to advance the right of gun owners.

      I would go as far to say that it was STUPID idea.

      Yes, they acted in a restrained manner. Yes, they were discipline enough not be drawn into a situation that would call for the use of deadly force. And Yes, It was their legal right to do so.

      But I would like to know if these militia had the forethought to develop rule of engagements that clearly provided a thorough understanding of the legal requirements necessary to use deadly force. Even the Police with qualified immunity are extremely tested in riot situations to maintain discipline.

      If the militias wanted to establish a presence that would show a positive image of militias, they would have been better served by setting up an aid station to treat any protesters or innocent bystanders injured, and limit themselves to carrying concealed firearms.

      1. Wait a minute, you said they acted in a restrained manner, were disciplined and didn’t allow themselves to be drawn into the fray. They also obeyed all laws and DID render assistance to those that were injured. Exactly what is your problem, then, with anything they did? Or are you just trying to suppose a worst case scenario which never occurred?

        Further, why should they carry concealed? Open carry has been legal in Virginia for more than 150 years. Relatively speaking it’s only concealed carry that has been allowed recently. Before that you were considered to be of a “criminal type” if you concealed your weapons. You can’t have it both ways. Actually, we can have it both ways and that is we support ANY type of carry by law abiding citizens, period.

        1. Since nothing went wrong simply because they got lucky. Past performance is no guarantee for future events.

          The primary result of their action is to cause a backlash by gun grabbers and new calls to SHEEPLE to ban open carry rights. I am sure that those individuals who open carry for self protection will thank them if the DEMOCRAPs are successful in passing legislation banning open carry.

          If they wished to act as medical first responders, they don’t need to carry ARs to render aid. The same reason my military medics or corpsmens do not traditionally carry rifles into combat. Their purpose to treat the wounded, not engage in combat.

          The idea of offering a backup to law enforcement, without coordination or cooperation of local law enforcement is a recipe for mistakes.

          1. Your arguments are specious. Their stated goal was not to “backup” law enforcement, it was self protection. They do not operate in any manor under the same rules as those of medics in the military.

            As for assisting Democrats in their never ending quest, if you believe anything we do or say would ever be enough to placate them you’ve not been living on the same planet as the rest of us. You NEVER, under any circumstances, give up a Right in hopes that those that wish to curtail that Right Will somehow be appeased. They will not. History is awash with the bones of those who have tried that tactic. Rights, whether they be of free speech, religion, to assemble or to bear arms must be vigorously exercised or they become like unused muscles, weak and ineffective, subject to abuse.

            1. Since one of their stated goals is to protect free speech.

              If one group starts throwing rocks, bottles and melee with clubs, how do you believe that having an AR for self-protection will be used to protect free speech?

              Will to start shooting people preventing one group stopping another group’s free speech. Or were they planning to go into direct physical contact, holding AR like clubs?

            2. It is the role of the police to protect free speech balance with the need to maintain public order, not a militia.

            3. Tracy: They held a line to protect demonstrators. When it was clear that police were refusing to do their job and arrest violent protesters they did exactly what they should have done, they pulled back, which they were able to safely do. They endured taunting, verbal assault and being spit on while the police did nothing. Why don’t you start asking the Governor and the police why they stood by and did nothing? The very few that were armed and it was only a few acted with incredible restraint and composure, unlike the violent rioters on both sides.

            4. Wow Tracy, did you just can your entire line of reasoning with that last statement. And when the police refuse to maintain order and protect people, what then Tracy? Who?

            5. @wildBill is correct. The courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the individual, only society as a whole — whatever that entails

            6. @Tracy, Throwing a rock or bottle or using a club is deadly force. It is credible deadly force, and It is imminent deadly force. Which reminds me three are no “rules of engagement” in the US. Rules of engagement are a commander’s tool to prevent getting sucked into an unplanned engagement, and only apply to OCONUS combat.
              And finally, where ever did you get the notion that you could defend free speech by shooting? If someone throws a rock at you, they are not trying to destroy your free speech. They are trying to destroy you!

            7. Agreed! I have problems with FASCISTS having weapons during a “demonstration” that the DemocRAT-ICK communist party member called the ‘governor’ and the ‘mayor’ tried to instigate the RIOT which DID happen. All of OUR American RIGHTS which were RESTATED in the Amendments MUST be USED daily against the government which through time has become a TYRANNICAL government. I hope and pray President D. J. Trump can help bring America back from the “black-hole” of communism.

          2. Tracy, I agree with your premise. But people don’t open carry for self protection. A concealed firearm is a better tool than a weapon your enemy has access to. It is tactically poor to advertise your strength to your opponent. Open carry is a political statement about a right one has, and about a right one is trying to protect. The fact that it accomplishes neither of those purposes, does not seem to sink in. A man walks down the street with his little daughter. He has no strong feelings pro or con on the gun issue. They pass a man carrying an AR and his daughter looks up at him and asks. Daddy, is that man going to shoot us? Now he has a very strong feeling about the gun issue. Open carry may be your right, but it makes no friends, and has a strong potential to make enemies. Don’t be stupid!

            1. Joe: Nice opinion and you’re entitled to it but there are absolutely no facts to back it up one way or the other.

              Cute trick with the father daughter routine. You, of course, leave out the very teachable moment where the father informs his daughter about self protection, the different types of carry and answers her next question “well Daddy, where’s your gun so you can protect me?”.

            2. Joe, Soldiers and police open carry for a good tactical reason. Conversely, police, deputies, and soldiers do not concealed carry for good tactical reasons. If you choose to limit yourself to concealed carry, that is fine. A guy ought to do what he thinks is best under current circumstances.

          3. @Tracy, that was not luck. That was self discipline, which does guarantee outcomes. Are you the spokes person for the hypothetical “SHEEPLE” calling for bans to open carry. I don’t think that you are. I think that you are just making things up.
            And what are your qualifications for being the decider of what first responders, or militia or anyone else need? I think that your need to control people has gotten the better of your good manners and self discipline, today.

            1. Ok Bill,

              If you were part of that militia, and part of the crowd turned there ire upon your group and started throwing rock, bottles, etc…

              What would have your response been?

              1. Would you fire upon the crowd a-la-Kent State?

              2. Stand there and take it without the protection of riot gear (something the police have, and militia do not).

              3. Charge the crowd with your ARs and beat them with it like clubs?

            2. @Tracy, What was wrong with the shooting at Kent State? The commander and his unit had tight discipline and fire control. They were vindicated in the after action report.
              Tracy, it seems that you do not know that if one party uses deadly force, in what ever form they choose, the attacked party can use deadly force, in what ever form that they choose. If someone tries to kill you with a thrown bottle, then you can quite legally prevent that attempted murder by shooting the attacker.

            3. Bill

              The implications resulting from kent state was a political victory for antiwar activists. It does not matter if the after action report vindicates you afterwards.

              In this case, if the militia unit was placed in a position forcing them to fire on a crowd for self defense. It will not matter if the trial a year latter finds them not guilty. The liberal would have had a very good chance of passing legislation allow local government to ban open carry, long before the results of the trial are made public

          4. BWAHAHAHAHAHA, notice how she uses the common Liberal tactic of limiting your choices? How about none of the above? You withdraw!

            1. Great. Your a genius!!!

              Now Command Vanns40, militia commander. You just order a retreat.

              The mob now see a group of armed men carrying ARs retreating. They now believe that you do not have the guts to fire upon them, and pursue you. You have moments to decide on a course of action. Your not sitting behind a keyboard…your in the heat of action facing a mob. As the mob closes on your retreating unit, what are your orders?

            2. @Tracy, I’ll give that lawful command. The problem with your attempt to box me in with you hypothetical is that you don’t know enough about the law of self defense. I would like to suggest Robinson on Criminal Defenses.

            3. Bill

              There are 5 element to justifying the uses of deadly force.

              They are:
              1. imminent
              2. innocent
              3. reasonable
              4. proportional
              5. and lastly avoidance

              Unless you are prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every shot your men fired hit a person whom represented an imminent deadly threat, and not one of your men missed an hit a bystander. your militia unit will have a very difficult argument convincing a jury of your innocents

            4. @Tracy, Shadow of a doubt is not a legal standard. Shadow of a doubt is from TV. I am impressed that you looked up the law of self defense so quickly. What site did you use?
              Not engaged in a crime is innocent.
              Thrown rock is deadly force and imminent.
              Interrupting the murder attempt is reasonable.
              Deadly force to meet deadly force is proportionate.
              Your foolish hypo includes pursuit so avoidance is not possible.
              Quod est demonstratum Deadly force is justified.

            5. @Tracy, I would like to spend the time to teach you trial law, but I have animals to take care of. You have to read the cases to find out what each element means. You can not go by your own definitions. Oh, and before you go out and do anything pursuant to the education that you have received, please, consult any attorney.

          5. Hmm, I seem to notice a trend here of you trying to: 1. Limit responses to your choices and 2. Continuing to attempt to put responders in a neatly fit little box that will suit your ulterior motives.

            Let’s proceed this way. Never answer a hypothetical, no matter how well you plan, once you engage or are engaged by someone all the planning has a habit of going sideways. Since you seem so eager to though, what would YOU do if you were in this situation? No, “well I wouldn’t be in that situation” or anything else. You want to play games, go ahead and play. Let’s hear your answer. By the way, what is your experience with firearms, tactical courses taken etc?

          6. In your response to @WildBill You show only a partial knowledge of very quickly acquired local law. Have no idea what State you live in but in some States your statement of the components is totally incorrect. Time for you to go back to the Violence Policy Center or the Mad Mommies and tell them you’ve actually run up against folks who do know the law and not just their talking points.

            1. Bill

              I knew the five elements because I am a CCW holder, and I took the time to take classes on when it is legal to act in self defense. I know of all the elements because I don’t want to be put in a situation where a little foresight could possibly prevent alot of pain.

              And since you are an attorney, you must also know that if you do every thing correctly, there is a more than acceptable chance that you will still be convicted.

              And if not convicted the costs of defending yourself will be enough to question why you put yourself in the position of needing to use deadly force.

              As to the complaints of using hypothetical. Well that all you have right now, and the one i proposed is as reasonable as any other that is possible. It is not far fetched, or impractical. It as real consideration that should be consider before placing yourself in a situation that can be dangerous and fluid.

              I also did not pose this hypothetical to be a pain in the posterior. I posed it because of my past experience. I am a retired army officer. I am a combat veteran from OIF and OEF. I was an operation officer at the Battalion and Brigade level of command. It was my job to plan operations and develop contingencies.

              You could claim that I have a bias against militias, thinking they are a bunch of yahooo playing at soldier, inserting themselves into a dangerous situation, beyond their training and experience. I maybe wrong, but there is a very good chance that I also maybe right.

            2. Vanns40

              You show only a partial amount of common sense.

              Reacting like a libtard by making a response like “Time for you to go back to the Violence Policy Center or the Mad Mommies and tell them you’ve actually run up against folks who do know the law and not just their talking points”

              I probably have more guns that you, and I also probably donated more money in the last year to the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA, and the Firearm Policy Coalition than you have in your entire life.

            3. @tracy, Common Sense! What sense is common to all? Could you, tracy, give me a list of the sense that is common to all. I do not wish to be remiss in my social requirements.

            4. Common Sense

              The best way to win a gun fight is to avoid one. That common sense.

              Not put yourself in the middle of two opposing groups hell bent on violating each other free speech rights.

            5. @tracy, You write, “The best way to win a gun fight is to avoid one. That common sense.” So that is your entire list?
              So, if the gun carrying attacker pursues me with his deadly force, I should continue avoidance? How far should I run? You do know that firearms are distance weapons? And if I manage to not get murdered, the prosecutor has no murder case agains my attacker? Seems unfair, somehow. Are you sure that this is Common Sense, tracy?

          7. “back up for law enforcement”
            Hell, the cops weren’t there to do anything and probably ordered not to. Just the presence of armed militia may have kept things from getting more violent, before the Neo decided to run people down. Seems to me that these militias were the only ones there not breaking any laws. Pretty good PR by any measure.

            1. Dr.Sigue

              Would you really put yourself in a situation with the possibility of using either deadly force or even less than deadly force protecting someone else’s free speech?

              Me, I like my guns too much to put myself in a Charlotte courtroom facing a prosecutor hell bent on prosecuting me for doing the police job.

              And if the police were order to be withdrawn by the libtard mayor, to set the stage for rioting, they will be just as happy attempting to drag your but to jail by getting involved in something you could easily have avoided.

            2. @tracy, I live on a ranch and had things to do. I did not even know that you asked. So just off the top of my head: 1851 Colt Navy, 1873 Colt Single action first generation, a 1965 Colt single action fully engraved that is my barbecue gun, I have a Bob Munden race gun Colt third generation, I have Arvo Ojala’s movie pistol 2 gen Colt. I have seven CMP Garands, One M-1D with full provenance from the Army to the CMP to me. P17 Enfield, Remmy Springfield w/M84 scope, 8mm Mauser sniper, Some custom made rifles. Couple of M-1 carbines. Browning Citori. Some other civilian stuff. Oh, I just got my CZ 6.5 Swed back from the gunsmith, beautiful full stock, Brux barrel.

          8. And yet, Tracy, you still continue to not answer questions. You’ve been wrong on point after point and, for someone who claims to own firearms and give to pro-gun organizations you appear to be woefully ignorant when it comes to basic Constitutional law, rules of self defense, rules of engagement that are taught over and over to every student who has ever taken a concealed carry class or tactical handgun class. You appear all to eager to blame the gun owner who wishes to have the means to defend himself outside the home in any situation. I wonder how that can be for someone who contributes “so much” and therefore would have been receiving all the material to educate herself on the issue. How can that be? How can someone like yourself refuse to answer the simplest of questions, claim to be such a supporter and still come across as someone whose view of the Second Amendment is “I believe in the Second Amendment, BUT…”? Why is that?

            1. I answered but the moderator didn’t like my description of your intelligence.

              The answer to you question regarding NFA and the Gun Control Act was not YES, but HELL YES.

            1. @Vanns & DrS, Apparently, tracy’s VPC new employees training did not prepare tracy for difficult independent thinking persons like you guys! Maybe, Xcrement Xcrement did not brief tracy properly.

            2. SIG 716 DMR R716-H18B-DRM
              LWRC M6A2
              Beretta 1301
              VEPR 7.62.54R
              VEPR 7.62×39
              VEPR Molot 12
              Mossberg 930 SPX
              BMC RECCE-16
              M&P Sport II
              3x Ruger 10/22
              Norinco Type 56
              Anschultz 164
              Henry Pump 22lr
              SigP220
              Sig Pro 2022
              Sig P238
              H&K Comp USP
              Glock 30
              Glock 19
              Glock 26
              Springfield XD45
              Springfield EMP
              Beretta 84FS Cheetah
              Beretta 3021 Tomcat
              CZ75 SP01
              CZ75 P01
              CZ 2075 Rami
              Kimber Ultra Covert II
              Rock Island 1911 CS
              Bersa Thunder
              Ruger LC9
              Ruger LC380
              M&P shield (x2)
              Ruger MIII 22/45, Ruger MKIII Target
              Browning Buckmark
              and a handful of 25 ACP

            3. I also have half a dozen complete lowers,
              And I forgot the Kel-Tec KSG and Remington 870 and mini-14

            4. @Tracy…Of course you know now the cia, fbi noted all that you listed.
              I had many questions to ask you but ammoland kept deleting me.

            5. @OV, 6.5 Lapua! I just got tired of typing. We are preparing for hurricane whatchacallit. How are you and Sammy doing?
              Did I tell you that I sent my CZ 550 in 6.5 Swed, with the Bavarian stock off to the gunsmith for a Brux barrel? Picked it up from my FFL guy and got it home 2mikes before the wife got home.

            6. @WB…Thought you were working with a creed, did you trade it? We’re doing well keeping busy. CDL keeps me running Dr. said she could find nothing to gripe at me about, but she would flunk me on the DOT physical is I wanted . Looks like you could be for some rain.

            7. @OV, Nope, its a Lapua 6.5 x 47! You know that I am not a crowd follower. I like that odd ball stuff. Oh, and remember the ammo shortage. There never was a shortage of 6.5 Lapua.

        1. Hell YES

          And pass constitutional carry.

          And I would also like for felons caught using a gun to committing a crime should have their hands chopped off too. Only get to be a repeat offender once. Gang crime will back to knives and clubs, and law abiding people gets the advantage of having a gun.

          1. Pretty darn slick. You almost made it but the devil is always in the details which is why I picked that particular gun. They were manufactured from 1954-1998. They didn’t exist in 1941. And that makes your entire reply suspect.

            Oh, by the way, you still haven’t answered my question.

            1. An “M” date code is 1941, I stand corrected. An M1 date code is 1967. The seller misrepresented the year and the price by a LOT.

            2. Further, your gun was made in 1967 so depending on month of manufacture would not be 50 yrs old. You should stop this conversation right now.

            3. You are providing WAY too much information. I don’t even trust you and I’ll tell you that. I’m finished with this posting.

            4. You started this thread.

              Just because all you did is pick about irrelevant details, and I have been fully transparent you are calling it quits.

              What firearms do you have? I answered you questions. Answer mine.

            5. @tracy, I know that Vanns is a pretty charming guy, but you sure do want to correspond with him, badly.

    6. Every politician and high-level bureaucrat should be using the litmus test, “Would this be good for the Nation?” in their decision making. The nation should be asking the same question about every politician and high-level bureaucrat. If the answer is no then the thing should not be done or the person should not be in that position of power. Why is this not happening? Why are these people not being replaced? The battle will be won or lost in the primaries.

      1. @Wild Bill … Do you have the ARC tied to the front porch, and life jackets for the good Sargent and all the animals?
        Surly you are taking them all , not just two of each species ?

        1. @OV, Yep, got the boat parked right by the front porch (dock, whatever). Taken everybody if necessary.
          But I am on a hilltop with a gradual slope. We are the tallest thing around so if it floods here…boy howdy.

    7. the first amendment has become difficult to explain to the young , as teachers are instructing them that it only protects “good speech” and that it is ok to stop “hate speech” . there is an additional aside that government is there to protect “good speech” but not to protect any dissenters.

      yet there is no definition of good speech and if you try to explain to kids )we are talking junior high and high school) people that everyone has a right to speak their mind – they are already inculcated with the mindset that only the will of the masses are allowed.

      if your child is going to public school you really need to look at what is being taught and take active steps early

      1. As someone who is nearing the end of this phase of life it’s hard to explain to young parents that if you have to live in a one bedroom apt., do it, but send your children to the best private school you can. Do not let them become indoctrinated with all the Liberal crap being taught today.

        1. @Gentlemen, sending your kids to a good school, not letting them get indoctrinated, and learning to think and question critically is the best investment that anyone could make.

          1. @WB…That’s also why I would be in favor of reinstating the draft. I know more than one young person who received an adjustment to the outlook on life being in the military.

            1. Finally, something I agree with. 3 years mandatory military service for all. Learn responsibility, discipline and complete community/civic projects that benefit all.

            2. @old vet, I sure do agree with the mandatory draft because it will make men out of punks. However, it is asking the government to do what parents should have done and that is to raise their kids to be responsible team players without a bunch of b.s.

    8. Excellent article by Jeff Knox. As obnoxious and despised as white supremacists are they still have the right to protest or speak their outdated opinions. Likewise, as objectionable and despicable as Antifa and other communistic groups are, they too have a right to be heard. This current situation where the government failed to keep counter protesters at a distance and withhold police presence to keep the peace fits right in to the kinds of actions we’ve come to expect from the Democrat party.

      1. Why you’d almost think that some in the Liberal Govt. actually wanted a violent clash between the two opposing sides….nah, what possible purpose would that serve? Hmm, let me count the ways…

      2. @BillCa…Don’t forget the MSM wanting to manufacture “news ” stories. You see how they slanted the whole thing.

    Leave a Comment 108 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *