Maybe it's just me, but I think open-carrying while "protesting" automatically upgrades you to terrorist.
Legitimate free speech doesn't need to be backed with a threat of violence.
QT: https://journa.host/@w7voa/111081408709622409
@LouisIngenthron
I couldn't disagree more, because of
A) how police treat unarmed protesters.
B) Often the arms are symbolic of the point you're trying to make
You can't be a terrorist if you're not trying to terrorize the public.
A) If you're worried about police escalation, open-carrying makes that problem *worse* not better. What are you going to do, shoot at the police?
B) Then bring symbolic arms instead of real ones.
As far as I'm concerned, open-carrying is, in and of itself, an attempt to terrorize tho public (and that goes for armed police too).
And fwiw, I'm a CCL holder.
@LouisIngenthron
A)
I think history shows the reverse. Cops regularly beat the living crap out of protesters, particularly if they don't like what's being said but sometimes seemingly just for kicks. That's much less common when people clearly demonstrate the potential for the situation to get out of hand.
As for shooting them, I think that's generally ill-advised, but certainly an understandable reaction to tear gas, night sticks, and the like. Probably better off with RPGs.
@LouisIngenthron
If making a feeble attempt at intimidating state actors, including the police, is terrorism, then the word has basically no meaning and shouldn't have a negative connotation.