Merrick Garland will NOT paint us with the same brush with which he paints the MAGA maggots.

[lapucelle]

61. It's reasonable that demonstrators confronted by "counterprotestors" using or threatening to use

explosives, guns, or vehicles as weapons perceive a threat. Nowhere in the report does it say that counter-protesting is a threat.

As for the contention that the conclusions reached are a function of the

"Liberal/Centrist security-state mindset: "It is all a threat'",

the report makes clear that its parameters are limited to "terrorism":

This report focuses on terrorism—not other issues, such as hate crimes, protests, riots, or broader civil unrest. Terrorism is the the deliberate use—or threat—of violence by non-state actors in order to achieve political goals and create a broad psychological impact.

▪ Explosives and Incendiaries: bombs, Molotov cocktails, arson, and other weapons
that create a blast or fire;

▪ Firearms: automatic, semi-automatic, and non-automatic rifles; shotguns; handguns;
unknown and other gun types; and non-lethal guns, including airsoft rifles12;

▪ Melee: close contact weapons that do not involve projectiles, typically involving
stabbing or bludgeoning, for example, knives, machetes, axes, and hammers;

▪ Vehicle: cars, trucks, vans, sports utility vehicles, and other automobiles, typically
used in ramming attacks; and

▪ Other: weapons that do not fall into any other category, such as a bow and arrow.

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

I don't think that Democrats (be they liberal or centrist) broadly ascribes to the proposition that "it's different when Group X threatens to use or uses bombs, guns, axes, hammers, and vehicles as ramming devices as a means of "counter-protesting". Terrorists are terrorists.