Posted on 03/20/2022 7:56:57 AM PDT by DoodleBob
I 40 in the middle of nowhere is tagged as Cuervo, New Mexico 88417
Mild barf alert? I stopped reading at ‘white supremacists’.
One day the left will perceive that the Constitution was meant for a moral people, and ask that it be repealed, because they aren’t.
That’s a dangerous road to go down, for a lib. Once they do that, they’ve opened themselves up to who might be the least law-abiding subgroup in America.
Some key tidbits:
"On November 19, 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of homicide charges stemming from his killing of two people—Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum—at a protest of police violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse had armed himself and traveled to the protest, purportedly to defend Kenoshans’ property against looting. The acquittal sparked substantial public outrage about the state of gun laws and about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system more generally. "
And then
"Such cases have raised public concern that certain states’ gun-use and self-defense laws effectively invite malicious individuals—including vigilantes and white supremacists —to kill with impunity."
Which one is tempted to dismiss as more lying by the usual liars, which it most certainly is. But it's also part of the on-going attempt to use Kyle Rittenhouse's entirely lawful self defense as a) an example of some sort of "new" problem caused by "lax" gun laws, and b) an "academic" weaponization of the case to advance today's racialized politics. That it appears so transparently bad faith to us, doesn't mean that it won't be useful to the enemies of liberty moving across the land.
But the real "meat", I think, is here:
"...when states combine generous open carry policies, lax assaultive threat rules, and weak (or nonexistent) duties to retreat , the laws themselves create the danger. Together, such rules generate incentives for ordinary, rational individuals to issue progressively escalating threats of deadly violence for the sake of their own protection. The result is a scaled-down version of the brinksmanship that characterized midcentury nuclear strategy: a small arms race.
All practicable solutions involve breaking the cycle of escalation by imposing penalties on escalatory acts by one or more actors. Such penalties reduce actors’ access to self-defense in the short run while generating a less dangerous equilibrium for everyone in the long run."
The first complaint is the usual bleat about open carry, and one presumes, constitutional carry. They know that they've one this one in the blue states, and have lost decisively in the red states, so this is just a pro-forma sop to their audience, and maybe a red herring to the pro 2A crowd. But then they get serious, with their second, and possibly novel idea, about "lax assaultive threat" rules. They are coy about this, but what they're complaining is a problem is that people might have words before things turn physical, and the problem with this, from their perspective, is that the current laws of self defense don't consider non-threat "warnings" as assaultive. We'll get to their remedy in a bit. Finally, they take a shot at the "duty to retreat" doctrine, which is an almost entirely court created doctrine that does much to undermine lawful self defense, and has been corrected by many state legislatures with what the left libels as "stand your ground" laws. This assault on self defense is enjoying renewed interest with the sweeping adoption of constitutional carry, but it's not novel.
But they've opened a new vector of attack with their concept of "escalatory acts". If adopted, this would effectively gut clear self defense defenses, such as Kyles's by replacing the ancient principle that the person who started the fight can't claim self defense, with the notion that in what would otherwise be a lawful case of self defense (as in the Kyle Rittenhouse case), the defender's spoken "escalation" prior to the start of the altercation would remove that self-defense claim.
The goal is simple: if they can't ban guns, they'll just use the legal system to put anyone who uses one for self defense in jail.
Rust never sleeps. We must be ever-vigilent.
Unhhh, one wound up and hit him with a skateboard, and another was in the process of pulling his pistol. And it ain't "allegedly" anymore, it was proven in a court of law.
I find it interesting the insertion of “white supremacist” into the conversation. That is just leftist word salad to subliminally or pehaps not so much acknowledge that a lot of modern day gun control disproportionately affects mostly Republican contituencies which just happen to be mostly white.
Leftist gun controllers want their enemies disarmed and for reason.
“All he had was a handgun. Why did you think that was a threat?” — Rittenhouse Prosecutor
A fact-free academic paper by solid Americans Krishnamurthi and Salib.
The actual facts show an armed citizenry is safer, and crime happens where ‘control’ happens, but that won’t slow these two down.
Actually, the Founders have already performed the "cost-benefit" analysis, and included it in our Bill of Rights:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Clearly, the Founders considered the "costs" associated with a disarmed citizenry, unable to preserve the people's liberty from a despotic government, to far outweigh any imagined safety "benefit" that might result from limiting access to weapons...
progressively escalating threats of deadly violence for the sake of their own protection,” the authors write.
And that’s if they are feeling like being nice.
Even when confronted with such a sign (in Arizona), if you are carrying concealed just keep it concealed and walk on in. Most they can do if they "make" you is ask you to leave and then file a trespassing complaint if you refuse.
This gets mild barf alert, because it's about a bunch of academic lawyers (the equivalent of management consultants), hence mild, theorizing nonsense about the Second Amendment, hence barf alert. It's worth posting because I believe it's important to be aware of what the enemies of civilization are pushing.
If these were practicing lawyers involved in cases but speaking in generalities, it'd be a barf alert without the qualifier. If they were in an actual case, hurl alert. If it was lawyers involved in an actual case citing bogus statistics, it'd be a mega barf alert.
Your mileage may vary.
I hate tyranny, especially when done in the name my own safety, therefore, I love the tools that tyrants hate. Pen, paper, speech and guns and ammunition etc.
Totally agree with what you said.
A longstanding error of interpretation/application, is still a correctable error.
The NFA is such a 'longstanding error' badly in need of correcting.
I was just thinking “eastern New Mexico” after seeing your previous post.
I used to do occasional field work out there.
and a Good Cigarette.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.