ETA: maybe a better way to phrase this would be to contrast between open carry states and restricted carry states. IANAL, but in NYS, for example, my understanding is that these people would be breaking the law the second they marched on Albany openly carrying firearms.
ETA2: Downvotes for pointing out reality?
Anyway I'm not sure why that means the state will have a rough time. It may mean they'll have an easier time, as they have a readily-available reason to arrest the protesters.
There, fixed that for ya :);)
As a community, I would argue that those who regularly open carry are much less likely to incite or join a violent protest than those who do not open carry. But perhaps I've spent too much time in the Bible belt.
(This is not to argue whether open carry laws are, on balance, a good or bad thing for society, that’s a different issue.)
many were not only carrying arms, but where also wearing armours, like soldiers on a mission.
and with those guns and armours they were trying to seize control of the Parliament.
and to add insult to injury, 5 people died!
where I come from it is unconceivable.
The last time someone died during a protest was 20 years ago, it was a boy protesting the G8 in Genova, killed by a stray bullet shot by a young police officer, too young to have the necessary experience to be there that day.
we still talk about it as a national tragedy and a complete failure of the police forces and as a reminder of the dangers of far right politicians taking control of the forces - that day the ministry in charge was a former member of a fascist party, promoted by Berlusconi.
Luckily few years later he disappeared from the political stage, unfortunately not for reasons related to what he did that day, but for lying about the property of a house in Monte Carlo.
the idea of someone attacking the Parliament guns in hands is terrifying; you would see the army patrolling the streets and people protesting from North to South here.
even more terrifying is the idea that those people are simply "angry citizen" or more accurately "professionals chaos makers" but acted and were equipped like military troops.
I think USA has a violence problem, before the political problem.
that's what makes everything scarier from the point of view of a person living in an allied country of the USA, filled with US military bases, but on the other side of the ocean: the idea that everything could happen and there is nothing anybody can do to stop it.
EDIT: I don't understand if the downvotes are because some people disagree that 5 people dead during an armed attack to a democratic Parliament is an inconceivable display of violence, especially in the greatest democracy in the World or because some people think that an armed attack to a democratic Parliament, in a country that holds atomic missiles, is something we shouldn't worry about...
must be hard for them to realise that in USA it is quite easy to plan and execute something that not even in Iraq or Lybya has ever happened (also because USA bombed them)
I’m not downplaying the problems the US has, but I’m not sure that having the army patrolling the streets is an upgrade.
I meant they would be patroling the street to protect the democracy from the insurrectionists.
What happened the other day to the US it already happened to Italy in 1922 when Mussolini took power literally marching on Rome.
There was another (failed) attempted fascist coup d'état (the Borghese coup) in 1970, that Borghese stopped few hours before the final phase (the plan included kidnapping the President, killing the chief of Police, occupying the National TV with the help of members of the CIA and NATO).
it's a very sensitive topic here.