Yeah the problem is that the other side says the exact thing, with the difference that they aren't oppressed, they simply lost the "right" to oppress others
In this context your comment means the violent from protestors/revolutionaries has already happened. That's why everyone's confused and asking for clarification
This is the true price we pay for our sham supreme court. It’s a strong indicator to all that justice is not done. It encourages dangerous vigilantism and violence because as you write, where will it come from then? How are the wronged to be made whole?
This is seriously dangerous territory and I’m quite concerned for where we are headed.
...so they're encouraging the escalation of peaceful protests into actual riots... in Texas... where at least half of the pop is armed... sure, that'll go well.
Gov. Abbott is definitely teaching the lesson that anyone who tries to drive into protestors should immediately be shot and killed, because all attempting to deescalate does is get more protestors murdered with no recourse.
People need to protest using all rights afforded to them by the Constitution. The right to free speech, which they use, the right to protest, which they do, and the right to carry arms, which they need to do.
People need to address the state in the only language it knows.
and the right to carry arms, which they need to do.
The victim was doing exactly that (he was open-carrying an AK-47), which is the pretext the murderer used to falsely claim "stand your ground."
In retrospect, the tactically correct thing to do would've been for Foster to have preemptively shot Perry through the car window, citing the same "stand your ground" defense (with infinitely more legitimacy, since Perry had just been trying to run over protestors).
Or, scary!, depending on who's holding it. Guns are either a god given right or the devil's playing depending on the presumed political leaning of those holding them.