So, Federal agents in unmarked mini-vans are going around and arresting (the screaming leftist pundits are saying “kidnapping”) Antifa and BLM agitators invovled in riots, vandalism, and other crimes (same leftist pundits say “protests”). And I’ve seen some folk out there asking folk like, well, me, why we aren’t up in arms and using our guns to resist that “government overreach” (since that’s one of the things we argue regarding the 2nd Amendment and RKBA is that it’s as a hedge against government tyranny).
But here’s the thing: The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
The enemy of my enemy might be my friend. He might be someone who, while not a friend, nevertheless be someone I can work with against a greater enemy. Or he might be very bit as much as, if not worse than, the other enemy and it would simply be better for me to stand back and let them slug it out with each other:
And when it comes to Antifa and BLM, they fall into the last category. You see, avowed Marxists, intent on overthrowing the Constitution, intent on demonizing me in every possible way, including about my support for RKBA (which they are now complaining I won’t use in their behalf; see the hypocrisy?), are as big a threat as government overreach if allowed to continue.
Add in that as much as they scream about a “right to protest” there is no “right” to do the things they are doing. There is no “right” to vandalism just because you call it “protest”. There is not right to riot just because you call it protest. There is no right to arson just because you call it protest. There is no right to looting just because you call it protest. There is no right to doxing just because you call it protest. There is no right to breaking and entering just because you call it protest. There is no right to detain people against their will (blocking traffic and otherwise interfering with people’s lawful free movement) just because you call it protest. And there certainly is no right to assault and battery just because you call it protest.
There is no “right to protest” that makes illegal things legal. There are certain things that the government is forbidden from prohibiting, certain rights you have that can be used for protest, things like free speech, a free press, the right to peaceable assembly (those things in the preceding paragraph are not peaceable, they are pretty much the exact opposite of peaceable), and the right to petition government for redress of grievances. But criminal acts are still criminal acts even if done in the name of “protest.”
The vans being used by federal agents are unmarked? Show me anywhere in the Constitution which says that Federal law enforcement can only make arrests while wearing distinctive police uniforms and in distinctive marked cars. Do you think US Marshals in history had “Federal Officer” dyed into their horse’s hair? Police detectives in plain clothes driving unmarked vehicles make arrests all the time. They only have to identify as police to the person or persons they are arresting. Neither uniforms nor marked cars are required.
The claim is made that they don’t Mirandize the people they are “kidnapping” (arresting, in point of fact). Again, they don’t have to. The Miranda warning is only required before interrogation. And even then, failure to do so only makes any statements made without the warning inadmissible in court. It does not invalidate the arrest itself. “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Failure to give that warning simply means that it can’t be so used. Anything else they have is still perfectly admissible. If they’ve got enough to hold you without the statement, then they can still hold you.
As for federal overreach, well, I’d warned folk about the danger of making so many things federal crimes rather than leaving it to States and municipalities. But no, you had to push for more and more Federal power. And, indeed, you’re pushing for more now. You don’t object to more Federal power and overreach. You only object to being on the receiving end of it. If you “win” you’ll put even more in place. No thanks. I’m not going to help you deprive me of even more rights.
Now, if your rights were actually being violated, I would be in a difficult moral position. My own principles say that you have your rights even if we disagree. But you’re using your rights in an attempt to influence government to deprive me of mine. Fortunately, I’m not in that position because you didn’t limit your action to things that are actually your rights. No, you had to go beyond, far beyond, your actual rights and doing it in an attempt to not just deprive me of my actual rights but to demonize me making me your enemy. And you want my help?