In thinking about our 2a rights,it often runs into what some want to say is our first ammendments rights., However,I think the cities and states cannot have it both ways.
I am using Charlettesville as an antagonist in the point of view. ( Person killed by being run over rally) A lawsuit was recently dismissed, in the Charlettesville orchestrated disruption.
I note an organizer brought suit for the violence,and laid it at the feet of the city. Their contention was the city should not have had the protestors in the same space or at (near) the same time. The police knew trouble could occur and wanted to use any violation as a means to arrest.
The court said in part that the city( state) was not responsible( to me logic would say schedule the protest counter protest in different places,different times etc). The view essentially was everyone can talk,no one can do anything else,the city isn’t culpable for the actions of others.
There is a truth in that,as well as a glaring willful ignorance!
The fact that the courts ignore, group mentality or refuse to protect(operative word is refuse) by scheduling,permitting or any other means,is an example of why citizens must be able to protect themselves from govt,and circumstances
( Citizen judgement aside for the moment).
Knowing that often times people in groups act out ( not all the time,see VA 2a rally,a thing of beauty), and taking no responsibility for orchestrating or promoting a problem, shows the lack of concern for human saftey by governments.
A common man might say,why schedule the protest near each other in day or time or location.
The fact that it was done intentionally,and was used as an excuse to incarcerate is a problem.
I do not care about the content of the protestors on either side,just the mechanics of the betrayal of citizen rights vs a citizens right to be armed.
I highlight the mechanics as a statement on the abuse of govt rule,and the lack of responsibility the govt takes in our personal saftey.
If any govt can create or manipulate issues such as these,then they must acknowledge a citizens right to protect him or herself from the very govt that claims to have their interest at heart! The interest is not about personal saftey? But about manipulation and control!
If these facts are true,then a citizens right to carry should never ever be questioned?
(Remember,this is only about the mechanics of the decisions, as it validates the need for citizens to carry. This is not about points of view presented by the rally,march,riot etc.)
What does the community say?