Sitting Congressman Says He'd Shoot Protesters

Published on September 6, 2020
Duration: 9:23

This video discusses a controversial Facebook post made by Congressman Clay Higgins, a former SWAT officer, in response to the Not Effing Around Coalition (NFA). Higgins issued a strong warning, implying lethal force against armed groups perceived as a threat in his district. The speaker analyzes the legality and appropriateness of such statements from an elected official, contrasting it with how similar threats from anti-gun groups are typically received. The discussion highlights the tension between expressing patriotic sentiment and the potential legal and political ramifications of public statements.

Quick Summary

Congressman Clay Higgins issued a strong warning on Facebook, stating an armed presence by the NFA would be a 'real threat' and that he would 'eliminate the threat.' While acknowledging the sentiment might be shared by many patriots, the speaker questions the appropriateness of such explicit threats from an elected official, citing potential legal and political risks.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction & Channel Update
  2. 00:39The Controversial Statement
  3. 01:14Context: BLM & Antifa vs. Patriot Groups
  4. 02:15Identifying Congressman Clay Higgins
  5. 02:59Higgins' Facebook Post Content
  6. 05:21Full Quote Analysis
  7. 06:24Speaker's Interpretation & Concerns
  8. 07:00Double Standards in Political Rhetoric
  9. 08:01Political Ramifications for Higgins
  10. 08:32Viewer Engagement & Call to Action

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Congressman Clay Higgins say in his controversial Facebook post?

Congressman Clay Higgins posted a warning stating that an armed presence by the NFA would be considered a real threat. He indicated that 'we the people of Louisiana' would respond, and he personally stated he would 'drop any ten of you where you stand' and 'eliminate the threat,' implying lethal force if confronted aggressively.

Why was Congressman Clay Higgins' statement controversial?

The statement was controversial because it came from a sitting congressman and contained explicit threats of violence, even though it was in response to armed protests. Critics argue that such rhetoric from an elected official is inappropriate and could have legal or political consequences, regardless of the perceived threat from the protesters.

What is the speaker's perspective on Congressman Higgins' statement?

The speaker acknowledges that many patriots might agree with the sentiment of defending against threats but believes that a congressman should not have made such a public and explicit threat. He feels it was inappropriate for the time and place and could jeopardize Higgins' political career, despite agreeing with the underlying sentiment.

How does the speaker compare this incident to threats from other groups?

The speaker highlights a perceived double standard, noting that if groups like BLM or Antifa made similar threats, the public outcry would be much greater. He suggests that when a 'patriot' or a conservative politician makes such statements, they are often glossed over or met with less criticism than if the same rhetoric came from opposing political factions.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News

View all →