Would you counter-protest?

[creaker]

Laws may vary, but I believe it's legal to carry--even brandish--weapons as long as you aren't openly threatening anyone.
I learned this listening to a scanner app...

But they seem be able to ban whatever they want whenever they decide to. After the marathon bombing here, even backpacks were banned at public events quite frequently.

[Alan]

But they seem be able to ban whatever they want whenever they decide to. After the marathon bombing here, even backpacks were banned at public events quite frequently.

Once a state takes away a citizens ability to defend themselves, not just physically but as a matter of policy, they then have the ability to "ban whatever they want whenever they decide to". I find it odd that people allow that to happen.

[Williamsmith]

But they seem be able to ban whatever they want whenever they decide to. After the marathon bombing here, even backpacks were banned at public events quite frequently.

Brandishing a weapon, espcially a firearm is a crime in many jurisdictions and you can find yourself in a real pile of poo even if you are defending yourself.

[creaker]

Once a state takes away a citizens ability to defend themselves, not just physically but as a matter of policy, they then have the ability to "ban whatever they want whenever they decide to". I find it odd that people allow that to happen.

It happens here every 4th of July - whole big list of what isn't allowed to the festivities.

[bae]

Laws may vary, but I believe it's legal to carry--even brandish--weapons as long as you aren't openly threatening anyone.

There is a legal difference between simply carrying a weapon, and brandishing a weapon.

Brandishing is typically a crime.

[JaneV2.0]

There is a legal difference between simply carrying a weapon, and brandishing a weapon.

Brandishing is typically a crime.

I've heard of people walking around waving sticks, knives, etc. The question is always "Were they threatening anyone?" I agree they invite observation, if not confrontation, by the police.

[jp1]

No I would not. Why give them what they want?

The president already did give them what they want on Saturday and again yesterday. If he's not going to stand up to them, and why would he since clearly he IS one of them, then someone needs to.

[catherine]

I believe in the non-violent brand of civil disobedience of MLK, Gandhi, Tolstoy, and Mandela. So I would not go with placards and weapons, but if I were brave, I might join a group of people who had peaceful, non-violent means of protesting. If I were really brave I would go and offer hugs to everyone--Nazis, whites, blacks, Jews, Muslims, old, young. But I'm not particularly brave. So I might be more inclined to stay at home, watch it on TV and feel depressed and judgmental.

[Teacher Terry]

Like IL I don't think we need to give them any air time or recognition. If everyone ignored them they might find it not worthwhile.

[LDAHL]

The president already did give them what they want on Saturday and again yesterday. If he's not going to stand up to them, and why would he since clearly he IS one of them, then someone needs to.

Well it is sad to see the white supremacists getting more influence from the political class than any time since the 1924 Democratic convention, but I don't think that's the whole story. Validation from a fellow yahoo is nice, but I think what they really want is a fight to help them build their mythology of struggle and victimization and gain attention. That is a primary goal of identity politics, and I think in many ways you could think of these guys as the original identitarians.