cars: the new ar15 for rw maniacs

[rae121452]

because you have to clear a background check to get a gun but anyone can get a driver's license.


Minneapolis sees car drive through Daunte Wright protest crowd: report
Wed, 01 Dec 2021 03:35:59 GMT
A protest in Minneapolis on Tuesday evening, calling for justice in April’s police-involved shooting death of Daunte Wright, was disrupted when a driver...

 

[OldJourno]

because you have to clear a background check to get a gun but anyone can get a driver's license.


Minneapolis sees car drive through Daunte Wright protest crowd: report
Wed, 01 Dec 2021 03:35:59 GMT
A protest in Minneapolis on Tuesday evening, calling for justice in April’s police-involved shooting death of Daunte Wright, was disrupted when a driver...

So the new AR15 for the right-wing is a car. The dude who drove through the Christmas parade didn't strike me as right-wing, but it's not my narrative so carry on.

 

[rae121452]

So the new AR15 for the right-wing is a car. The dude who drove through the Christmas parade didn't strike me as right-wing, but it's not my narrative so carry on.

was that before or after charlottesville, i forget. and was there a political motive. i forget.

 

[pecksniff]

and was there a political motive. i forget.

Apparently, nobody's sure yet.

 

[pecksniff]

This matters, because Republicans have been enacting laws protecting drivers who hit protesters.

Over the past 11 months of anti-racism protests, demonstrators have had to protect themselves: from police, sometimes; from white supremacists, occasionally; and from cars. Since the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, more than 100 incidents of hostile drivers ramming into activists have been documented. These assailants have included police officers, gun-toters, and even, in one instance, a Ku Klux Klan leader. Many, though not all, of these aggressors were charged under local statutes—but now, a growing number of Republican state lawmakers are trying to ensure that, in the future, such vehicular attacks get a pass.

On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an “anti-riot” bill that allows harsher police crackdowns on demonstrators—an apparent response to the “defund the police” and Black Lives Matter movements. (“This bill actually prevents local governments from defunding law enforcement,” DeSantis said.) A public gathering of three or more people can be classified as a “riot” under the law, and anyone who “willingly” participates in such a gathering can be charged with a third-degree felony. Plus, participants in rallies that turn violent can be also be charged with a third-degree felony even if they had no involvement with the violence. Most jarring of all, the law grants civil immunity to drivers who ram into protesting crowds and even injure or kill participants, if they claim the protests made them concerned for their own well-being in the moment.

On Wednesday, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill that grants immunity to drivers who unintentionally hurt or kill protesters on public streets, should they claim they feared for their lives or attempted to escape the premises, and makes protesting by obstructing a public street itself a misdemeanor punishable by fines or prison time. The act was initially introduced in response to an incident in May 2020 when a pickup truck rammed into a mass of people in Tulsa protesting Floyd’s killing, injuring three of them, one of whom was paralyzed from the waist down. (The Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office declined to press charges and suggested that the standing protesters were the real instigators and the driver was the victim.) Though Oklahoma’s bill is not nearly as elaborate as Florida’s, it does go further in protecting protester-killing drivers by shielding them from even criminal charges.

These two laws are only the latest examples of anti-dissent legislation introduced by state-level Republican lawmakers across the country. According to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law’s U.S. Protest Law Tracker, 17 states have enacted a total of 30 anti-protest bills and executive orders prohibiting protests at fossil fuel facilities, expanding the definitions of the words incitement and riot, heightening requisite penalties, and granting state officials further power to crack down on grassroots demonstrations on both public and private property. South Dakota and Tennessee have had laws on the books since 2017 that allow those states to penalize conscientious objectors who obstruct traffic, but neither has gone so far as to protect belligerent drivers. Since 2016, hundreds of state laws cracking down on various forms of dissent have been proposed, and 45 states have tabled these proposals; 68 of these bills are currently pending. This is the largest number of concurrently considered anti-protest laws at any point in American history.

More and more of these bills have been introduced since 2017, especially since last summer. That includes the subcategory of measures protecting drivers who hit protesters. After the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, legislative proposals in Republican-led states to protect drivers from lawsuits brought by harmed demonstrators proliferated—and, as I noted last year, mass demonstrations against racist police brutality also brought out dozens of counterprotesting drivers who ran over protesters, in a few cases even killing them. In these rallies, often led by Black activists, protesters have taken to streets and highways in symbolic and generally peaceful gestures, inconveniencing those who might otherwise ignore them and sometimes bringing attention to highways whose construction destroyed Black Americans’ neighborhoods. The bills introduced in 2017 all faltered, but the idea has rebounded. Measures have been introduced in Missouri and Nevada, among other states, that would grant civil immunity to drivers who hit permitless protesters if the drivers are exercising “due care.” Prominent critics and legal experts argue that all this will serve to do is throttle free speech rights—and that it could, as Alex Pareene wrote in the New Republic this weekend, create a sort of Second Amendment for cars in order to intimidate and discourage Americans exercising their rights to protest on the streets.

 

[KeithD]

Republicans are such law-and-order champions and advocates for right to life.

 

[pecksniff]

Republicans are such law-and-order champions and advocates for right to life.

Let's see how long it takes for the Liticons to show up and defend the above legislation.

 

[Champakian]

So the new AR15 for the right-wing is a car. The dude who drove through the Christmas parade didn't strike me as right-wing, but it's not my narrative so carry on.

Exactly what I was about to post.

 

[bellisarius]

Barbie has the perfect vehicle for street/road protest clearing. Just add the snowplow attachment and it's good to go.

 

[Champakian]

Lol...

 

[Dribble]

Let's see how long it takes for the Liticons to show up and defend the above legislation.

It will be the same ones that believe rape is ok....cause she asked for it by how she dressed

 

[bellisarius]

It will be the same ones that believe rape is ok....cause she asked for it by how she dressed

You shouldn't speak about Muslims like that.

 

[LittleDixie]

because you have to clear a background check to get a gun but anyone can get a driver's license.


Minneapolis sees car drive through Daunte Wright protest crowd: report
Wed, 01 Dec 2021 03:35:59 GMT
A protest in Minneapolis on Tuesday evening, calling for justice in April’s police-involved shooting death of Daunte Wright, was disrupted when a driver...

So, are you suggesting that we should have background checks to own a car?

Why don't we ban assault cars. There are less deadly alternatives.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.../dp/albums/album-4036/lg/p50-7.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[

 

[Bud_Spencer]

was that before or after charlottesville, i forget. and was there a political motive. i forget.

Was there a political motive to the Minneapolis incident? After all, violence at a lot of these "anti-violence" rallies is pretty common.

 

[Champakian]

He's suggesting a false equivalency...


Inadvertently, he helps the Right make a salient point,
it's not the gun and if you want to create mayhem
and inflict violence upon others, there are a
myriad of effective ways to do it...

 

[icanhelp1]

So, are you suggesting that we should have background checks to own a car?

Why don't we ban assault cars. There are less deadly alternatives.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.../dp/albums/album-4036/lg/p50-7.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[

Damn assault cars, fully automatic, step on the gas once and off they go till they run out of bullets I mean gas.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Let's see how long it takes for the Liticons to show up and defend the above legislation.

When protestors commandeer streets and highways without a permit, blocking traffic and unlawfully detaining drivers, they aren't engaging in peaceful protest. any motorist ho wants to drive out of that situation is perfectly warranted in doing so, and if the criminals in the street don't cede the way, then using the car to clear the way is jusitified.

 

[icanhelp1]

When protestors commandeer streets and highways without a permit, blocking traffic and unlawfully detaining drivers, they aren't engaging in peaceful protest. any motorist ho wants to drive out of that situation is perfectly warranted in doing so, and if the criminals in the street don't cede the way, then using the car to clear the way is jusitified.

Funny how the looney toons demand people surrender their right of mobility to the mob while mob violence tramples over civil liberties, *up is down*, *black is white*, *wrong is right*. Some violent mobster stands between me and my destination I’ll run the fucker over then get out of my truck and shoot the fucker to put the stupid bastard out of his misery,** just kidding** : I’d only run his ass over.

Waiting to be banned!

 

[BidudeinWi]

because you have to clear a background check to get a gun but anyone can get a driver's license.


Minneapolis sees car drive through Daunte Wright protest crowd: report
Wed, 01 Dec 2021 03:35:59 GMT
A protest in Minneapolis on Tuesday evening, calling for justice in April’s police-involved shooting death of Daunte Wright, was disrupted when a driver...

Some black, racist, blm loving America hating POS just drove through a Christmas parade in Waukesha Wisconsin, immediately killing 5 and severely injuring over 40 including children, and you post THIS???

WOW!

 

[LupusDei]

Why don't we ban assault cars. There are less deadly alternatives.

Actually, certain level of pedestrian protection should be a mandatory thing, yes.

 

[LupusDei]

And I guess, protesters would have to deploy their own car stop barriers, homemade version or commercial (like this, sorry for advertising; no personal interest):

https://youtu.be/l0GbVbIGmmE?list=TLGG4C-1Ix3j6dcwMTEyMjAyMQ

.

 

[icanhelp1]

Actually, certain level of pedestrian protection should be a mandatory thing, yes.

To quote ACLU:

“You cannot, without a permit, engage in intentional obstruction. That just means getting in the way. So if you're in the street you can't intentionally jump out in front of a car, and if you're in a park you can't block the way so that no other pedestrians can use the park. Same goes for sidewalks, so if you're on a sidewalk and you for someone to go out into the street because you're blocking the sidewalk, that can be a problem.”

“In practice, that means when you go out to protest on a sidewalk, you do it one or two people deep. In practice, if you're going to march down the street, you have to stay in the breakdown lane. And in a park it means that you have to make sure that there are paths for other pedestrians to go through and walk around your protest. So you have an absolute First Amendment right to get out there and make your voice heard. You do not, without a permit, have an absolute right to intentionally gather to stop traffic whether it's vehicle or pedestrian traffic, under the First Amendment. My name is Lee Rowland. I'm a free speech attorney with the National ACLU and thanks for watching TalksOnLaw. with a pretty big asterisk.”

 

[LupusDei]

Actually, certain level of pedestrian protection should be a mandatory thing, yes.

To quote ACLU:

“You cannot, without a permit, engage in intentional obstruction.

Sure, but that's not what the discussion is about at all. My comment you cited was about regulation of cars, in principle, just like emissions, seat belts, etc.

And even when it is... I mean, unlawful traffic blocks are and have been very efficient protest form in many occasions... the right way to do even the (intentionally) wrong thing is to be efficient about it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

He's suggesting a false equivalency...


Inadvertently, he helps the Right make a salient point,
it's not the gun and if you want to create mayhem
and inflict violence upon others, there are a
myriad of effective ways to do it...

He's mocking your tribe's tendency to invoke auto deaths whenever one of your members makes a blood sacrifice at the altar of teh steel penis substitute.

And it's not a "salient point" at all, housesquaw...as many have stated before, the primary purpose of motorized transportation is NOT to "create mayhem". The same cannot be said about firearms.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Barbie has the perfect vehicle for street/road protest clearing. Just add the snowplow attachment and it's good to go.

He should have used it on January 6th if he was a patriot.