Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Allegation: Roanoke Christmas Parade 'hijacked' by Open Carry III Percenters

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Allegation: Roanoke Christmas Parade 'hijacked' by Open Carry III Percenters

    Anyone know about this?

    Christmas parade Confederate flag fallout continues - Many supporters of the Confederate flag apparently entered the parade improperly
    A week ago, Downtown Roanoke Inc. defended the First Amendment right of a Sons of Confederate Veterans chapter to march and carry the Confederate flag in the city Christmas parade despite complaints from the Roanoke NAACP.

    Then as many as 50 Confederate flag bearers — some of them said to be armed — entered the parade and marched along behind the float of the Sons of Confederate Veterans 28th Infantry Camp 49.

    ...

    The flag supporters, including many in the crowd who cheered loudly when the banner passed, were turned out by two pro-Confederate flag groups in the region, plus a third constitutionalist group that posted a video “call to arms” encouraging supporters to openly carry guns.

    “It did get hijacked,” said Mark Craig, commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans group, “but not by us.”

    They were joined by a post from Daniel Highberger, of Roanoke County, who recently founded a constitutional group called Sons of Liberty Southwest Virginia, which is a part of the national III Percenters movement. The movement takes its name from a belief that only 3 percent of colonists actually fought to win independence from England during the American Revolution. Followers believe government is creeping along a path to tyranny, and they are prepared to defend the liberty of all law-abiding Americans, Highberger said.

    Bowles and Boone said they support the III Percenters movement, but not all its principles.

    Highberger posted a video “call to arms” on Facebook, urging backers to come to the parade and cheer on the Sons of Confederate Veterans and openly carry firearms to exert their Second Amendment rights.

    He uses his own handgun and holster to demonstrate proper open carrying.

    “Protect your brothers if the need arises,” he said.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,165
    Thank you for the heartening story! Merry Christmas
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Not all hijackings are bad, right?

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Not all hijackings are bad, right?
    Well, some seem to hold that hijacking the convention to improve the Articles of Confederation* and turning it into a convention to create a new centralized government was a good thing.

    -------------

    I didn't fully follow the OP. Was the accusation about hijacking the parade a whine by someone annoyed that attention was taken from somebody else by the OCers? Or, just wild exaggeration by an anti-gunner?



    *At least one group of delegates walked out of the constitutional convention very early, declaring their legislature had only authorized them to improve the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (the full name of the treaty between the original states). Think that through for a moment. First, the states were told the convention was to improve the Articles of Confederation. The fact that a large part of one delegation walked out very early protesting no authority by their legislature to make an entirely new plan of government proves the legislatures were lied to. Meaning, the convention was planned on false pretenses. Whoever was in on it planned to make the switch before it started.

    Second, take another look at the full name: Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. OK, so let me get this straight. It was not OK for the southern states to leave the constitutional union in 1861 when there was not only no prohibition against leaving, but Amendment 10 expressly says that powers not delegated are reserved. But, it was OK to dissolve a treaty that expressly included perpetual union in its very name?
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-18-2015 at 10:54 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739
    Craig said he and his group had nothing to do with the one in civilian clothes that formed up behind his float. “It was just a handful and it kept getting bigger and bigger,” he said.

    People apparently came out of the crowd to join in.
    If all the spectators join in the parade, then is a parade still a parade without spectators?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    If all the spectators join in the parade, then is a parade still a parade without spectators?
    I don't know ..but who would watch?

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    I continue to maintain that the United States' war on the people of Virginia was never about slavery. Nor was it ever a "civil war", since the people of Virginia did not rise up against the government thereof, nor was it "the North v. the South" - the United States made war against all the states and all the states lost. The issue was over control of the Constitution, and whether its provisions would continue to apply. In Marbury v. Madision, the United States announced that the charter with which the People created the United States was completely and finally subject to the control of the United States; neither the people nor the states had any say on the matter. (That decision is celebrated because of its creation of "judicial review" which is hogwash - that principle had been created a century earlier when the Court of King's Bench said that the Sovereign lacked the power to create a public nuisance.) Imperialist John Marshall said that the Constitution gave his court the power to decide matters of federal law; that the Constitution itself was merely an instance of such law; and that the Court's "interpretation" of its provisions were therefore final and absolute. In other words, the United States can make stuff up about what it wants the rules to be, regardless of what we've told it to obey, and then pretend those are the real rules. Virginia and other states said, in effect, "The hell with that, we're taking our ball and going home.", because the U.S. had abrogated the system set up by the people. It's as if a corporation, granted a charter to operated by the state, then decided to "interpret" the charter to mean that it was no longer subject to the provisions of state law, and was a law unto itself. Slavery was an issue designed to make the war seem necessary to just plain folks whose support was required to pay for the campaign. What I still don't understand is how (1) erasing our history will serve any useful purpose and (2) why people think the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is THE Confederate flag.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,165
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I continue to maintain that the United States' war on the people of Virginia was never about slavery. Nor was it ever a "civil war", since the people of Virginia did not rise up against the government thereof, nor was it "the North v. the South" - the United States made war against all the states and all the states lost. The issue was over control of the Constitution, and whether its provisions would continue to apply. In Marbury v. Madision, the United States announced that the charter with which the People created the United States was completely and finally subject to the control of the United States; neither the people nor the states had any say on the matter. (That decision is celebrated because of its creation of "judicial review" which is hogwash - that principle had been created a century earlier when the Court of King's Bench said that the Sovereign lacked the power to create a public nuisance.) Imperialist John Marshall said that the Constitution gave his court the power to decide matters of federal law; that the Constitution itself was merely an instance of such law; and that the Court's "interpretation" of its provisions were therefore final and absolute. In other words, the United States can make stuff up about what it wants the rules to be, regardless of what we've told it to obey, and then pretend those are the real rules. Virginia and other states said, in effect, "The hell with that, we're taking our ball and going home.", because the U.S. had abrogated the system set up by the people. It's as if a corporation, granted a charter to operated by the state, then decided to "interpret" the charter to mean that it was no longer subject to the provisions of state law, and was a law unto itself. Slavery was an issue designed to make the war seem necessary to just plain folks whose support was required to pay for the campaign. What I still don't understand is how (1) erasing our history will serve any useful purpose and (2) why people think the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is THE Confederate flag.
    +1 Bears repeating.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I continue to maintain that the United States' war on the people of Virginia was never about slavery. Nor was it ever a "civil war", since the people of Virginia did not rise up against the government thereof, nor was it "the North v. the South" - the United States made war against all the states and all the states lost. The issue was over control of the Constitution, and whether its provisions would continue to apply. In Marbury v. Madision, the United States announced that the charter with which the People created the United States was completely and finally subject to the control of the United States; neither the people nor the states had any say on the matter. (That decision is celebrated because of its creation of "judicial review" which is hogwash - that principle had been created a century earlier when the Court of King's Bench said that the Sovereign lacked the power to create a public nuisance.) Imperialist John Marshall said that the Constitution gave his court the power to decide matters of federal law; that the Constitution itself was merely an instance of such law; and that the Court's "interpretation" of its provisions were therefore final and absolute. In other words, the United States can make stuff up about what it wants the rules to be, regardless of what we've told it to obey, and then pretend those are the real rules. Virginia and other states said, in effect, "The hell with that, we're taking our ball and going home.", because the U.S. had abrogated the system set up by the people. It's as if a corporation, granted a charter to operated by the state, then decided to "interpret" the charter to mean that it was no longer subject to the provisions of state law, and was a law unto itself. Slavery was an issue designed to make the war seem necessary to just plain folks whose support was required to pay for the campaign. What I still don't understand is how (1) erasing our history will serve any useful purpose and (2) why people think the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is THE Confederate flag.
    A lie told often enough..................................
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,165
    Look to the Stainless Banner and the Bloody Stained Banner and their contemporary controversies, imagine them now-a-days. What was the symbology of the dominant white field?

    But they'll all soon be disappeared from history and forgotten by all but US old codgers.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I continue to maintain that the United States' war on the people of Virginia was never about slavery. Nor was it ever a "civil war", since the people of Virginia did not rise up against the government thereof, nor was it "the North v. the South" - the United States made war against all the states and all the states lost. The issue was over control of the Constitution, and whether its provisions would continue to apply. In Marbury v. Madision, the United States announced that the charter with which the People created the United States was completely and finally subject to the control of the United States; neither the people nor the states had any say on the matter. (That decision is celebrated because of its creation of "judicial review" which is hogwash - that principle had been created a century earlier when the Court of King's Bench said that the Sovereign lacked the power to create a public nuisance.) Imperialist John Marshall said that the Constitution gave his court the power to decide matters of federal law; that the Constitution itself was merely an instance of such law; and that the Court's "interpretation" of its provisions were therefore final and absolute. In other words, the United States can make stuff up about what it wants the rules to be, regardless of what we've told it to obey, and then pretend those are the real rules. Virginia and other states said, in effect, "The hell with that, we're taking our ball and going home.", because the U.S. had abrogated the system set up by the people. It's as if a corporation, granted a charter to operated by the state, then decided to "interpret" the charter to mean that it was no longer subject to the provisions of state law, and was a law unto itself. Slavery was an issue designed to make the war seem necessary to just plain folks whose support was required to pay for the campaign. What I still don't understand is how (1) erasing our history will serve any useful purpose and (2) why people think the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is THE Confederate flag.
    Gritty, down-to-earth analysis, User. Thank you.

    For students of constitutional history, I recommend reading the Kentucky Resolves. Jefferson and Madison promoted the power of the states to interpret the constitution. Well worth reading in this age of over-bearing federal government.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •