Dec
11
2012

Breaking: Union thug violence towards right-to-work supporters in Michigan.

Charming:

Here’s a picture of the former tent in question.

Moral of the story, besides the obvious? GET A CAMERA. The Left STILL doesn’t get how bad they look when they get recorded Acting Badly.

More over at Twitchy. Much more, including random acts of assault, battery, and the now-deleted tweet where Michigan House Democrats egged on the aforementioned union thuggery.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

31 Comments

  • acat says:

    two by two
    cameras of blue
    .
    .
    . browncoats optional but recommended.
    .
    Mew

  • Cameron says:

    I think at this point, carrying a gun as well as a camera are necessary as long as it’s legal to do so.

    • acat says:

      Cameron, I have to disagree. It’s a whole ‘nother story if you’re carrying, legally or not.
      .
      Mew

      • Cameron says:

        Cat, under normal circumstances I’d agree with you. But we’re talking about a mob mentality being allowed to flourish and people being surrounded by hostile union thugs. I’m not advocating carrying a weapon anywhere it isn’t allowed. I’m saying that people should be ready to protect themselves with more than video evidence of wrongdoing.

        • Crawford says:

          MI appears to recognize in-state permits of all the states that issue permits.

          Just sayin’.

        • acat says:

          The problem, Cameron, is that the one who brings a gun to a knife fight is the aggressor, or is painted as “looking for a conflict”.
          .
          It’s a Bad Idea to set out to videotape while armed, and one that the media would certainly *love* to cover.
          .
          That said, if I currently lived in Detroit, I’d probably be carrying more than just my claws and my wits these days…but not when videotaping.
          .
          Mew

          • Spegen says:

            I concur, right now the Unions look like the bullies, a gun changes that dynamic. I actually have been pleasantly suprised by the MSM coverage so-far many actually commented that the unions brought this onto themselves with prop 2 in Novemeber

          • Cameron says:

            I understand your view, acat, but let’s be honest:
            .
            1. There is no way the media will paint the unions’ actions in a negative light. I’m willing to bet that the attack on the tent will be viewed as belonging to “outside agitators.”
            .
            2. No matter what anyone supporting right to work laws does at these protests, they will be seen as “looking for a conflict.”
            .
            My remark simply meant this: The unions are escalating things and Michigan Congresscritters are encouraging it. Being armed only with a video camera is not being prepared enough.

          • acat says:

            Cameron, no, you do not understand my view.
            .
            Videotaping union thugs behaving badly has the opportunity to make our side look better by comparison, although it has to make its’ way *around* the media as they don’t want to cover it.
            .
            Yes, it’s risky, that’s why you don’t go alone, and you don’t both get caught in the middle. If you don’t want to take the risk, *don’t go*!
            .
            However.
            .
            The minute a conservative shows up armed, the media will be on it like flies on an #OWS dining tent, and instead of making the situation marginally better by risking a beat-down, or neutral by staying home, you’ve made the situation exponentially worse.
            .
            Don’t. Go. Alone. Don’t. Go. Armed.
            .
            Mew

          • Crawford says:

            Don’t. Go. Alone. The. Other. Guy. Goes. Armed.
            .
            I cannot support the idea of setting yourself up to be beaten, just for colorful video. You’ll still be called the aggressor; the press is really good at selective editing and telling only the pieces of the story they want. You could be standing as still as a statue when you’re mobbed and beaten to a pulp, all caught on video from a dozen angles with synchronized audio, and they’ll point to one of the attackers’ broken nail as evidence you were violent, too.
            .
            So protect yourself, everyone.

    • Doc Holliday says:

      I think context is key here. While I would never tell someone what to do vis a vis gun carry or other major life choices/responsibilites, I can certainly give you my views on how I would act.

      1) If I had the right to carry concealed for protection in a specific place, I would do so, regardless of the chance of violence. Certainly the last thing a law abiding, legal, concealed weapon carrier should do is disarm because he is in an area of “increased” violence.

      2) AS someone who has a right to defend himself and his family, I would not go to an area where there is the potential for an increased threat. Hence, I would not get a camera and go looking for a mob. That is my choice, but I am glad others are documenting this.

      3) If someone filming these thugs is legally carrying a concealed firearm, and that person is a responsible citizen. The fact that he has a firearm would not “escalate” things, hell, it would never be known.

      4) and this is the big one. If you are carrying a legal concealed weapon. The only time anyone would know you have it is when you pull it. If you pull your weapon, it can ONLY be for one reason! That reason is that you fear for your life and the lives of others, full stop.

      There is no brandishing, their is no, “look what I have”. If the weapon comes out it must be ONLY because your believe your life is in immediate danger. If that is actually the case, all this talk about cameras, and knife fights, etc is for naught. Only thing that matters is you don’t draw down, unless you believe your life is in immediate danger.

      5) there is a general rule that those who carry should make an extra effort to avoid confrontation. That is a good rule and way to live. It makes no sense to go looking for trouble, and certainly not if you are carrying a gun. However, again, it would seem foolish to me to disarm and then go looking for trouble.

      I hope you all see this is complicated. If one carries a camera and firearm around legally, they are doing nothing wrong imo. But if you do not normally carry on a daily basis, and you “grab a gun” and a camera, and head down to the nearest protest/riot, you are not being responsible and probably not in the right frame of mind to make good decisions.

      jmo

      • Cameron says:

        Thank you, Doc. You explained it better than I could.

      • Crawford says:

        If someone goes to a protest to document the event, that is not looking for trouble.
        .
        If you taunt or incite them, yeah, that’s a problem. But the presence of a camera in a public gathering is not incitement.

        • Doc Holliday says:

          I never said a camera would incite someone. Of course, that is often left up to the incitee.

          I gave good general information about concealed carry, and what I would do, after years of experience with CCW and staying on the right side of the law.

          I never told anyone within their rights to disarm, I would never offer that advice. I would chuck the camera long before the gun.

  • Spegen says:

    Don’t forget the threats by the Dems that they won’t help fund things Detroit needs if this passes. You won’t spend more of my hard earned money on that rat hole if we pass this? whats the downside again?

  • antisocial says:

    The bad thing – The Unions are under assault.

    Bad for unions and democrats.

    And that makes me very happy.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com