Analogy: A swinging pendulum is often used to demonstrate Newton’s third law of motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is certainly true in the physical world, but there’s also a theory in the social sciences, that culture, political and economic trends also react to pivotal events and swing back and forth until that momentum eventually subsides and some sort of equilibrium or balance is achieved.
However there is also a dark side to this theory—when it comes to human interactions, if one party indiscriminately pushes, and if the other doesn’t back down, it could trigger a confrontation in which the side that perceives—they’ve been maligned, feels they are justified in shoving back, in order to dominate. Regrettably this could cause the situation to escalate into a feud—a vicious cycle of revenge and unpredictable fallout. This phenomenon has been witnessed in social media interactions all the way up to inciting conflicts.
Case In Point: “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people ‘PEACEFULLY’ to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
However, if counter-protesters with open carry use the 2nd amendment to trump the 1st, don’t they forfeit both amendments because they have transitioned into nationalists? Since they have now sided with the government, they are no longer entitled to the constitutional protections afforded to the citizens. The police are supposed to keep the order, not to dominate the protestors. When counter-protesters think they’re being slick by open carry, they are just trying to dominate the protestors, consequently it ceases to be a peaceful protest, but devolves into anarchy.
Recently a 17 year old patriot, who killed 2 white protestors and wounded another (to the point of disabling him for life) was acquitted of all charges because he pleaded self defense. The “BLM” movement was enraged with the ruling because they believe that the defendant shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Even though he stated that the only reason he was brandishing an AR-15 style rifle, was to serve as a deterrent because he was providing security. Any reasonable jury member would’ve discerned that the only reason he was there was to counter-protest because of the ongoing unrest in the city. His motivation for being there in the first place—to act as a chaos tourist—should have been cause to throw the self defense plea out the window.
It is common knowledge, that when police and protestors see an armed counter-protestor, they instinctively go into defensive mode. The public panics when they see a citizen with a weapon. The 2nd amendment advocate becomes the target of aggression and the police quickly move in and try to put it down, before the situation escalates out of control. However in this instance the police didn’t deescalate, because they perceived that the white teenager was on their side. Conservative government leaders and the police, think that they are being slick by allowing this scenario to play out, because they believe it is an effective method to shut down a protest.
By allowing the defendant to not suffer any consequences for his poor judgement of bringing a weapon to a protest—the judge has sanctioned a dangerous precedent—he has basically given permission to anybody that wants to participate in a protest to open carry. There are two dangerous messages he is broadcasting: the first is that if you injure a progressive because you perceive him as an enemy of your opposing ideology, you will probably get away by pleading self defense. The second is that race traitors or “BLM” sympathizers are being put on notice, that they will be punished by white supremacists for not sticking to their own kind.
In conclusion if our representative government doesn’t modify the law that dictates the “rules of engagement” for a peaceful protest to include “no open carry allowed”. (Just like “freedom of speech” doesn’t give anyone the right to indiscriminately yell: “FIRE” in a theater.) It won’t be long before we have another incident where the casualties might be worse. We shouldn’t allow peaceful protests to divulge into acts of domestic terrorism, where both sides are shooting at each other.
However if neo-fascist government leaders real aim is to squash the 1st amendment, by stepping off the protest line that opposes open carry, our representatives are enabling citizens’ cynicism and their instinctive fear of death to become the final impetus that causes the activists to close shop. If the patriots allow themselves to become a nationalist’s tool, to the demise of our 1st amendment, will they wise-up when it’s the 2nd amendment’s turn on the chopping block—probably not because by then it will be too late!
Read: The verdict is not a miscarriage of justice—but an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero
Critically, …the plaintiffs are not demanding the right to merely carry the firearm; they are demanding the right to use the firearm for self-defense. Thus, the fundamental question is not whether the presence of firearms threatens public safety but whether their use threatens public safety. The answer should be obvious, and the lessons of First Amendment jurisprudence should apply. …If elected representatives decide that the risks of innocent bystanders being injured or killed, the weapon being turned against the owner, or law enforcement being unable to distinguish between the good guy with the gun and the bad guy are unacceptable, the First Amendment teaches that courts have no authority to second-guess those judgments because they disagree with them. This should also be true if lawmakers restrict guns to protect the freedom to speak and assemble in the public forum.
Excerpt from The Supreme Court May Elevate the Second Amendment Above the First
The prosecutors disagreed. They said Rittenhouse was asking for trouble when he recklessly inserted himself into a dangerously volatile situation, thus negating his claims. “When the defendant provokes this incident, he loses the right to self-defense,” prosecutor Thomas Binger said in his unsuccessful closing argument. “You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”
Trials must follow the law and this jury’s considered verdict must be respected. But the Rittenhouse acquittal must not become an open invitation to other adventurous or fanatical gunmen and women to dangerously volunteer themselves as amateur militiamen or, as Rittenhouse’s prosecutors tagged him, “chaos tourists,” looking for violent trouble either until they find it—or become its cause.
Excerpt from Chicago Tribune editorial: When a ‘chaos tourist,’ causing plenty, walks free
“Today’s verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son. It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street,” they said.
Supporters saw Rittenhouse as a champion of gun rights who bravely stepped in to protect a community from what they considered lawless riots. Opponents instead saw an irresponsible vigilante who came to Kenosha to play dress-up as a police officer — a “chaos tourist,” as Binger put it.
Excerpt from Kyle Rittenhouse is acquitted of all charges in the trial over killing 2 in Kenosha
Final Thoughts: The First Amendment is the chief corner-stone to the Constitution, which upholds our democracy. Don’t be deceived into believing, you don’t need the First Amendment. If you willingly surrender your rights, what makes you think, the government can be trusted—to not trick you—into giving up your Second Amendment, also. Even if you resist, it will be too late, because you’ve already forfeited your First Amendment—Freedom of Speech and Assembly protections. The forfeiture of our First Amendment, whether by coercion, deceit or choice is the greatest threat to our democracy! “When you take care of your first priority, everything else will be okay” or “When you do first things—first, everything else will fall in place. However, if you do second things—first, everything else will fall apart”. Our Founders were cognizant of how subtle, government tyranny can be. We owe them a debt of gratitude, for amending the Constitution with the Bill of Rights!
In conclusion, the Second Amendment only serves as a guarantee that our First Amendment protections are defended. But don’t be deceived, when the Second Amendment was enacted, it was to serve as a deterrent against government tyranny. Back in December 1791, it was probably feasible for a militia of colonists with muskets to subvert the standing army. However in our current state, a militia of armed citizens would never be able to overthrow the government, because the armed forces possess weapons of mass destruction and control the military logistics network. So basically, if our First Amendment falls, our Second Amendment advocates won’t be able to defend themselves and as a consequence whomever orchestrates a military coup will eventually rule over the survivors.
Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?
“In every encounter, we either give life or we drain it; there is no neutral exchange.” By: Brennan Manning