Is Everyone That You Disagree With a Terrorist? Violence in Public Discourse.

I started noticing this during the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Anti-Government protesters, no matter how non-violent, were called terrorists. It was used as a pretext by Assad in Syria for the violent reprisals against anti-government elements which escalated into years of war. Now we're starting to see it here. To the right, Obama was a "terrorist sympathizer", Black Lives Matter protesters were terrorists, Antifa are terrorists. And the left isn't innocent either: Cliven Bundy & his group are terrorists, the White Supremacists are terrorists. Whatever you think of these groups, and despite the fact that some of them are armed, do they really rise to the level of "terrorists"? It seems that when we throw this label around indiscriminately it loses a lot of its impact. What seems to be more and more obvious is that some groups are using the willingness to use violence, or at least appearing to be willing to use violence, as a tool of public protest.

I don't know when it started, but I first became aware of heavily armed protesters in a couple of specific incidents in the last few years. Cliven Bundy is a rancher in Nevada who has had an ongoing dispute with the United States government over his use of public lands to graze his cattle. Ranchers frequently utilize public (i.e. government-owned) land for various purposes by leasing it from the federal government. Mr. Bundy was seriously delinquent in his leasing fee payments mainly because he didn't believe that the federal government was a legal entity and therefore had no authority to prevent him from using the land. The details are labyrinthine. When the Bureau of Land Management attempted to confiscate his herd in order to force payment, a large number of heavily armed Bundy allies resisted in a standoff with the vastly outnumbered government agents. Several Bundy supporters were photographed pointing weapons at federal officials. Some time later Bundy's sons were involved in a takeover of a wildlife refuge, also heavily armed. Protests throughout the country against Muslims and Muslim organizations have featured marchers with assault weapons outfitted in military style clothing. At the infamous Charlottesville pro-Confederate/Nazi/White Supremacist rally, there were a large number of militia types armed to the teeth. One rightist was even filmed firing a handgun at an opposition protester. While, other than that one incident, there have not been reports of anyone firing their weapons, it makes you wonder why you need to openly display weapons at a "free speech" march. The only reason that I can think of is to intimidate. Of course, that's not what they say. The stated rationale is often protection, but protection from what? The Antifa? A loosely organized reaction to violence on the right? Before there ever was a hint of Antifa right wing folks were marching around with their assault weapons. If you have a problem with sharia law and want to send a message to the local Muslims, why does that require being armed for the invasion of Grenada?

The left has escalated as well. Antifa counter protesters started showing up armed with baseball bats and flagpoles and have now graduated to firearms. It's only a matter of time before a protest becomes a firefight and another innocent gets killed, not by a car this time, but by a rifle. While the right started it, the left includes a subset that welcomes the violence. It's a recipe for disaster.

Some jurisdictions do not allow open carry of firearms. Boston's demonstration was a lot more low-key and decidedly non-violent perhaps because the testosterone level was lowered due to the lack of lethal weapons. In Kansas City recently the police disarmed some Antifa protesters. Many other cities have no restrictions on openly carrying guns in public. Before open carry became prevalent in our larger cities if the police saw someone brandishing a gun, let alone an automatic weapon, they could immediately be categorized as a "bad guy", now they have to decide whether it's someone with criminal intent or simply a citizen exercising his perceived Second Amendment rights. The shooting of five police officers in Dallas last year is an example of how confusing this could be. The march that the police were monitoring included a number of marchers legally allowed to openly carry weapons, once the sniper opened fire the spectacle of multiple people, armed with firearms, running. It's a miracle that the police didn't shoot any of the protesters who were running for their lives.

While I fully support the right for individuals to own guns, it seems that it would be common sense to restrict carrying weapons at these protests. A nightmare scenario could play out where a weapon goes off by mistake, both sides start shooting, the police start shooting...how many dead do you think there would be?