The following post is me not taking a side. But addressing this with an open mind and seeing things from an "outside the box" perspective. It's commonly referred to as
Protesting is a first Amendment right. One that we all might need at some point. It's extremely important to a free society, And one that I completely support.
BUT, people like this are going to force the government to stop allowing protests.
Wait, did I just say that? "The government to stop allowing protests?" If that's the case, then it's not really a right, is it?
Maybe we're all just assuming we have a "right" to protest. Maybe we've been fed a load of crap about our actual rights. Maybe they allow us to do it when it doesn't disrupt too much. Like the 1/6 protest. Or the BLM protests.
Personally, I think it's actually been a privilege this whole time, and not an actual right.
These people on the bridge were arrested for protesting. The people in the capital were arrested for protesting. (some were justifiably arrested for assault. But I'm referring to the ones who didn't assault anyone, didn't destroy any property).
In the end, it's going to be "we the people" who will give the government the justification for abolishing protesting in this country. It's things like this that makes me think those who were violently protesting and those that got out of hand (1/6 and BLM) should've been Rittenhoused by us citizens. Because ultimately, that would've been fighting for freedom. Because the violent protesters of 1/6, BLM and antifa didn't give a crap about the freedoms they were destroying in this country.
P.S. There's a LOT of things that Americans can't do now a days, because citizens went to far. Like carrying a gun in a gun rack to school. Having an automatic weapon. Hauling freight without a CDL and a log book.