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.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “NY Times Finally Manages To Work Firearms Into The Charlottesville Narrative”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The armed militias are bulletless? Then why have the weapons in the first place? That’s right, to intimidate others.

    Time and again during the brief tRump regime we witness the fragility in an open constitutional democracy such as ours. For centuries it was not just laws but especially human decency and societal restraint that kept us functioning. tRump discovers there are no strict laws stopping him from cashing in on the His royal presidency, so he does. Only human decency and societal opporbrium keeps a royal president from twitting outlandish and hurtful trash. Only 30% of our residents support tRump, largely because of his own unstable persona and increasingly unhinged rants.

    Yes, it’s legal for groups of angry men with outside-the-mainstream views, to dress in soldier costumes, carry semi-automatic weapons and scowl at those they hate.

    Like a pacifier for an infant, carrying guns comforts the insecure.

    Maybe we should have lined up 50 of the right-wingers, and shot 49 of them with bullets dipped in Negro or Jew blood, and sent the 50th back to his people to spread the word. We bet we’d see no right-wing terrorism for 25 or 35 years (depending on what version of the false story tRump tells).

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Ah yes, more sanctimony from the sociopath known as little jeffuckery.

      Recall a supporter of Bank Fraud Bernie, (little jeffuckery’s doppelganger
      – James Hodgkinson) and a BLM supporter (Micah Xavier) and a Muslim (Omar Mateen) enjoyed terrorizing and gunning down innocent people but little or no faux outrage from the little twat.

      All Bank Fraud Bernie supporters are murderers.
      All BLM supporters are murderers.
      All muslims are murderers.

  2. Dana says:

    I had previously mentioned, both on Twitter and here, in one of the comments, that despite the fact that some of the alt-right demonstrators were carrying firearms, not one gunshot wound had been reported. Now, The New York Times reports that no shots were fired, not that there were simply no gunshot wounds.

    This is what the left fear most: the alt-right demonstrators were disciplined, either before the fact, by having empty magazines, or during the demonstration, by not using weapons which were loaded. The demonstrators showed perfect regard for the Second Amendment, bearing arms, yet not using them in an irresponsible or unlawful manner. Even in a situation in which they were harassed and attacked by the scumbag left, the right maintained discipline. Only one alt-right ‘demonstrator’ lost discipline, and he was armed with a car, not a rifle.

    And, apparently, Antifa knew that they would keep discipline. The left came armed with clubs, yet were still willing to attack men with guns; you do not do that unless you have a high degree of confidence that those firearms won’t be used. After all, just one man with an M16 and a loaded clip could have killed dozens.

    BuzzFeed News reporter Blake Montgomery: “Most white supremacist and Nazi groups arrived armed like a paramilitary force — carrying shields, protective gear, rods and, yes, lots of guns, utilizing Virginia’s loose firearm laws. They used militarized defensive maneuvers, shouting commands at one another to ‘move forward’ or ‘retreat,’ and would form a line of shields or a phalanx — it’s like they watched ‘300’ a few times — to gain ground or shepherd someone through projectiles. It seemed that they had practiced for this.”

    So, despite being armed with “lots of guns,” the alt-right used shields and protective gear to push their way through, with at least some semblance of training. Discipline!

    This is a huge problem for the left: this demonstration destroyed their argument that the simple existence of firearms is such a danger that the legal possession of weapons by lawful, disciplined people cannot be tolerated.

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Maybe we should have lined up 50 of the right-wingers, and shot 49 of them with bullets dipped in Negro or Jew blood, and sent the 50th back to his people to spread the word. We bet we’d see no right-wing terrorism for 25 or 35 years (depending on what version of the false story tRump tells).

    Well, they could certainly find that “Negro blood” easily enough, collecting it in the streets of Chicago or Philadelphia or Camden, homes not of the alt-right but bastions of the left, of Democratic voters, of the people foolish enough to have cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. There is where you will find the lack of firearms discipline, there is where you will find the unlawful use of firearms, and there is where you will find Antifa.

    And Jeffrey is fine with that: the alt-right displayed, but did not use, rifles. Our host’s most seriously whacko-leftist — so stupid that he cannot even tell the difference between males and females of what I presume are his own species — advocates the use of those rifles, not in self-defense, but in the form of a firing squad, against people he doesn’t like who are helpless enough that they could be “lined up” to be shot, the way that the real fascists would do things.

    Jeffrey has just advocated violence, advocated outright murder, just said that the alt-right should be gunned down in cold blood. It seems that the alt-right demonstrating in Charlottesville have proven themselves to be more civilized than Jeffrey.

  3. Jeffery says:


    Even someone as dense as you understand we were mocking tRumps answer to Islamic terrorist attacks, yet you are so filled with hate you ignore the obvious. Sad.

    Did you criticize your god-king, tRump, when he advocating shooting Muslims with pig blood coated bullets? Why not? Because he is the leader of your white violent coalition.

    Fortunately only one person was killed by daan’s white supremacist brethren.

    Why are rural white conservatives so enamored with Nazism, the Klan and white supremacy?

    • Dana says:

      You wrote what you wrote, and it is on the record: you advocated the cold-blooded murder of those with whom you disagree, even when those with whom you disagree were “heavily armed” yet kept themselves in check, shooting no one, and your protestations that it was just mockery does not erase that.

      Did I criticize my “god-king”? Surely you recall that I have stated, many times, that I did not vote for President Trump. Here is as much documentation of that as the internet can provide, posted on my site at 7:08 PM EST on election day, just after the polls closed in Pennsylvania, but well before the very surprising outcome was known. In it, I wrote:

      When it comes to the presidential race, I figure that Donald Trump wouldn’t be quite as bad as Hillary Clinton, but he’s such a loose cannon, I am not at all certain. I am praying that the GOP holds the Senate, to stymie any of Mrs Clinton’s judicial nominees.

      I had assumed, as had almost everyone else, that the odious Mrs Clinton would in the election. But I was proved right about one thing: as President, Mr Trump has not been as bad as Mrs Clinton would have been. Instead of a left activist, we got Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, someone who will not vote to overturn the Heller and McDonald cases and eviscerate the plain meaning of the Second Amendment, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one, or Citizens United, which protects our freedom of speech. Instead of admitting 100,000+ unskilled Syrian refugees to swell our already too-big welfare rolls, we have a President looking out for the interests of American citizens first. Instead of continuing to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, we have a President whose policies and actions are apprehending illegals and kicking them out, along with discouraging some others from coming. Instead of an idiot who’d present Kim Jung-un with a (mistranslated) “reset” button, we have a President who pushed back against the only fat kid in North Korea, and forced him to back down.

      As President, Donald Trump has been far from perfect, but he’s proved to be a heck of a lot better than the alternative we faced.

      • Dana says:

        Amusingly enough, The Washington Post wrote, five days before the election, that it was Mrs Clinton’s behavior as Secretary of State which antagonized Vladimir Putin personally, and led to Russian efforts to defeat her:

        Today, with Clinton now aiming for the White House, it’s not surprising that Putin might support clandestine efforts to undermine her candidacy — regardless of his views of her chief political opponent, the officials and experts said.

        “Putin has kind of got it in for Hillary,” said Clifford Kupchan, chairman of the consulting firm Eurasia Group and a Russia expert who attended private meetings with Putin during the Clinton years. “The statements after the Duma riots were like kerosene on a fire, and it really made Putin angry.”

        Putin last week denied taking sides in the U.S. presidential race, and he scoffed at allegations of Russian involvement in the hacking of Democratic officials’ email accounts, a crime that U.S. intelligence agencies believe was instigated at the highest levels of the Russian government.

        Kupchan said he thinks that Russia’s role in the hacking, if verified, was “more about sowing some chaos in the U.S. system than about any real hope of Trump winning.” But he said it also reflects a shot across Clinton’s bow, as her record suggests that she would be tougher and more outspoken on Russia compared with her predecessor.

        The lovely Mrs Clinton’s antagonizing of Mr Putin might, just might, have been the thing that tipped the scales, saving our country from the disaster that would have befallen us had she been elected.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Normal rural caucasian christian conservatives (aka country caucasian christian conservatives or C4) defend Nazis, the Klan and white supremacists because the media and decent society have not been very careful, in many cases equating Nazis, the Klan and white supremacists with normal rural white christian conservatives like daan. Normal rural white christian conservatives are no more likely to be neo-Nazis, Klansmen or violent white supremacists than a normal suburban Muslim is to be a jihadist or a normal suburban atheist is to be a violent antfa-ist.

    So normal rural white christian conservatives should distance themselves from the violent white christian conservative neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white supremacists rather than embrace them. It is up to the moderate C4s to denounce neo-Nazism, the KKK and white supremacy.

    But we understand your psychological need to defend them.

    • Dana says:

      Robert Stacey Stacy McCain:

      (I)t seems that James Field (the Charlottesville killer) enlisted in the Army in 2015 and flunked out of basic training. Why is it that the appeal of “white supremacy” is always irresistible to inferior white people?

      It’s true enough that white supremacy has little appeal for most white people, because most white people are perfectly content to compete on an equal basis with everyone else. But it does piss off a lot of people that the government allows and even encourages discrimination against white people, calling it Affirmative Action. If white supremacy, defined as a legal system which places whites above “people of color” — is that today’s en-vogue phrase? — is wrong, then why should a legal system which places “people of color” ahead of whites not be wrong?

      Justice Sandra O’Connor wrote in Grutter v Bollinger that the Supreme Court expected that the racial preferences the Courtgrudgingly approved would not be necessary in twenty-five years. Well, Grutter was announced at the end of June, 2003, and 14 of those 25 years have elapsed; can anyone (reasonably) argue that blacks are any better off vis a vis whites now than they were in 2003? A system of black supremacy sure hasn’t worked out well.

      The real way to end the white supremacist movement? Eliminate Affirmative Action! We should treat everybody equally; treating some people unequally only results in resentment, and the claims of those discriminated against that they should be the ones receiving favored treatment.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        It seems that James Field (the Charlottesville killer) enlisted in the Army in 2015 and flunked out of basic…

        Kinda like little jeffuckery back in 1971, “you know during Vietnam”… seems the little guy has another doppelganger in addition to James T. Hodgkinson?
        Spooky shit.

  5. […] NY Times Finally Manages To Work Firearms Into The Charlottesville Narrative […]

  6. Jeffery says:

    Seriously. So there was no white supremacy before the civil rights era, LOL? Try as you might to defend white supremacy and blame it on civil rights legislation, neo-Naziism, the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacy on civil rights laws enacted in the 60s, the facts disagree with you.

    The oppression of Black Americans AND the oppression of the white working classes arises from policies enacted by Republicans and Democrats to promote the interests of wealth, mostly white, Americans.

    a commenter typed:

    treating some people unequally only results in resentment, and the claims of those discriminated against that they should be the ones receiving favored treatment.

    That’s what Black Americans have been saying for centuries.

    • david7134 says:

      Your series of comments are so bad and off base that it is impossible to offer an opinion. It is like someone saying that the moon went flying off because the sun came up, you don’t know where to start in offering an explanation. In the end, you are a very stupid fool.

    • Dana says:

      Jeffrey fell into a trap I never meant to set:

      treating some people unequally only results in resentment, and the claims of those discriminated against that they should be the ones receiving favored treatment.

      That’s what Black Americans have been saying for centuries.

      True enough, which begs the question: why do you favor continued unequal treatment, only this time reversed, in which the government and many private businesses discriminate against whites, and Asians as well, in favor of blacks? Does your business have an Affirmative Action program?

      Come 2028, when the artificial deadline set in Grutter v Bollinger expires, you can be certain that if the states are continuing with Affirmative Action, another case will be heading to the Supreme Court to overturn it. With any luck, President Trump will have had the opportunity to replace Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer, and we’ll have a solid majority in favor of Equal Justice Under Law, as is emblazoned on the front of the Supreme Court Building, a majority which will ignore all of the statistics that the left will present claiming that, horrors! educational and economic ‘results’ between blacks and whites are not identical.

      Who knows: perhaps treating everybody equally will bring those outcomes closer together.

      I’d just love seeing Ted Cruz and Mike Lee appointed to the Supreme Court!

Pirate's Cove