If you don’t think there is some kind of violent conflict brewing, check out what happened at Stone Mountain over the weekend. Just YouTube it.
Some nice guys out for a casual stroll.

No different than militia movements during Obama’s tenure. At least they exercising there 2nd amendment rights, training and keeping their powder dry.

(07-06-2020 06:51 AM)450bench Wrote:  If you don’t think there is some kind of violent conflict brewing, check out what happened at Stone Mountain over the weekend. Just YouTube it.
Some nice guys out for a casual stroll.

Black folks larping. I laughed at it.

They demonstrated the tried and true "get ambushed and obliterated" tactic.

Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

I saw nothing but a crew of nobodies that simply felt a need fo' 'muh hyper-tension'...

#goFo'ItWhackjobbers

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

Agreed. Did you see them confront the guy in the van stopped in traffic?

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

(07-06-2020 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

Yep

"White militia" isn't likely to make such ostentatious displays. They'll show up when it's time for action.

(07-06-2020 08:38 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

Yep

#seconded

In addition to the already mentioned fact that the KKK was founded at Stone Mountain, Stone Mountain was also opened on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's assassination. And it depicts Robert E. Lee (fine with that), Stonewall Jackson (fine with that), and Jefferson Davis (he's a traitor who should have hung for treason and a vile racist, he has no business being a monument anywhere). I'm not down with blanket monument removal. But Stone Mountain is totally indefensible.

(07-06-2020 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

Again, I'm doing a comparative analysis between this group at Stone Mtn. and what we saw during Obama's run by white militias. Same rhetoric, same questionable training but most importantly, same ROI. What I will say is they could actually be of benefit to inner city black communities as an alternative to police patrol, but they ain't about that life.

As for the bolded, you are correct in how the MSM would spin this. More than anything I'd like to see a concerted effort to cancel them.

(07-06-2020 09:47 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  In addition to the already mentioned fact that the KKK was founded at Stone Mountain, Stone Mountain was also opened on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's assassination. And it depicts Robert E. Lee (fine with that), Stonewall Jackson (fine with that), and Jefferson Davis (he's a traitor who should have hung for treason and a vile racist, he has no business being a monument anywhere). I'm not down with blanket monument removal. But Stone Mountain is totally indefensible.

The Confederate National Park is what it is at this point. The only modification I'd accept is putting a statue of MLK at the summit. Otherwise, leave it be, because there isn't a sculpture alive as talented as the one who craved Lee, Jackson and Davis. Thus leaving the only 'solution' destruction.

And your assessment of those depicted is inconsistent IMO. Either you are fine with them all or they are all traitors. My issue with Davis is that he unlike the generals, he was terrible at his job. His removal of Johnston is the reason Sherman took Atlanta and burned GA and SC to the ground.

(07-06-2020 10:24 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

Again, I'm doing a comparative analysis between this group at Stone Mtn. and what we saw during Obama's run by white militias. Same rhetoric, same questionable training but most importantly, same ROI. What I will say is they could actually be of benefit to inner city black communities as an alternative to police patrol, but they ain't about that life.

As for the bolded, you are correct in how the MSM would spin this. More than anything I'd like to see a concerted effort to cancel them.

I agree that with the proper motivation and oversight they could be of benefit to black communities. Their motives would have to be pure though, like making a significant impact on black on black crime and killings.

(07-06-2020 10:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The Confederate National Park is what it is at this point. The only modification I'd accept is putting a statue of MLK at the summit. Otherwise, leave it be, because there isn't a sculpture alive as talented as the one who craved Lee, Jackson and Davis. Thus leaving the only 'solution' destruction.

And your assessment of those depicted is inconsistent IMO. Either you are fine with them all or they are all traitors. My issue with Davis is that he unlike the generals, he was terrible at his job. His removal of Johnston is the reason Sherman took Atlanta and burned GA and SC to the ground.

Lee was top brass in the US Army pleading for peace on the eve of war. He didn't want any part of the war. His view of being Virginian above and beyond being American is what led him to be in charge of the Confederate forces. After the war he toured the country asking for peace until his death.

Stonewall bought slaves to emancipate them. After they repaid their purchase cost they were set free. That might not be perfection but it sounds like one man doing what he can in his power to create progress.

Jefferson Davis has no such softer side. He was a hard liner on race and his political writings make he clear that he views white supremacy as a fundamental part of the Confederacy. The others on Stone Mountain don't have this odious baggage.

(07-06-2020 10:50 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The Confederate National Park is what it is at this point. The only modification I'd accept is putting a statue of MLK at the summit. Otherwise, leave it be, because there isn't a sculpture alive as talented as the one who craved Lee, Jackson and Davis. Thus leaving the only 'solution' destruction.

And your assessment of those depicted is inconsistent IMO. Either you are fine with them all or they are all traitors. My issue with Davis is that he unlike the generals, he was terrible at his job. His removal of Johnston is the reason Sherman took Atlanta and burned GA and SC to the ground.

Lee was top brass in the US Army pleading for peace on the eve of war. He didn't want any part of the war. His view of being Virginian above and beyond being American is what led him to be in charge of the Confederate forces. After the war he toured the country asking for peace until his death.

Stonewall bought slaves to emancipate them. After they repaid their purchase cost they were set free. That might not be perfection but it sounds like one man doing what he can in his power to create progress.

Jefferson Davis has no such softer side. He was a hard liner on race and his political writings make he clear that he views white supremacy as a fundamental part of the Confederacy. The others on Stone Mountain don't have this odious baggage.

The personal opinions of the three regarding blacks wasn't my contention. You called Davis a traitor, which is fine. But I'm not sure how the standards you apply to the POTCS wouldn't also extend to Lee and Jackson.

Davis was a stain on the Confederacy.

(07-06-2020 11:01 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Davis was a stain on the Confederacy.

All the states that formed the confederacy thought he would be a competent president.

(07-06-2020 11:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 11:01 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Davis was a stain on the Confederacy.

All the states that formed the confederacy thought he would be a competent president.

Lots of folks think that about Biden. :)