As SCOTUS approaches a potentially life-improving case, we are reminded why my old friend David Kopel is such an effective voice of reason for gun owners’ civil rights. Please read.
As SCOTUS approaches a potentially life-improving case, we are reminded why my old friend David Kopel is such an effective voice of reason for gun owners’ civil rights. Please read.
I am always amazed at how STRONGLY the left-wing worldview dominates the minds of people that allow left-wing ideology to consume them. As I noted before, the left-wing worldview is that people are mindless, spineless puppets who dance helplessly to social and environmental forces. Leftists BELIEVE that people are totally controlled by their environment.
In effect, they believe that if you put a bottle of booze in a person’s hand, they will become an alcoholic.
They believe that if you put money in their hands and then turn them loose in Las Vegas, then they will become addicted to gambling.
If you put cocaine or heroin in their hands, they will become a drug addict.
If you hand them a box of matches, then they will become an arsonist.
If you hand them a firearm, they will become a murderer. If the firearm is a so-called “Assault Weapon”, then they will become an “Active Shooter” and a “Mass-Murderer”.
In short, they believe that people HAVE NO WILL POWER at all to control their dark impulses. Therefore, the only control that is possible is Prohibition. To deny them access to alcohol, narcotics, gambling halls, firearms and (yes) even matches.
That is why left-wing Blue States are totally SCARED TO DEATH about firearm-ownership and, even more, with people carrying arms for their own defense and protection. They just know that the evil, possessed, demon gun (Christine incarnate) is going to grab a hold of some hapless person’s minds and transform Good Doctor Jekyll into Evil Mr. Hyde.
It is hard to understand the motivation of such deep-seated FEAR of the lack of self-control. Is it the result of their genetics? It is a result of their childhood environment? Is it because they know that they, personally, have little or no control over their dark impulses and, therefore, they project this lack of control onto humanity at-large?
Whatever the reasons for their psychoses, it clearly exists in the leftist mind. That is why anytime there is a threat to loosen any of their draconian “Gun Control” measures, such as this SCOTUS case which might expand the Right to Bear Arms across the U.S., they immediately go into “vapors” and start expounding “Dooms-Day” predictions that this will cause rampant violence and that “blood will run ankle-deep in the streets”.
Tell me, why on Earth do we allow these mentally disturbed people to have so much say and control in our lives? Would it not be safer and better for society to try to get these people the Mental Health Care, that they obviously need, while freezing them out of any position of authority since, clearly, they are mentally unfit to administer authority?
Spot on, TN_MAN. The fear is irrational to everyone but themselves. And yet, we allow these individuals so much influence in our society and legal environment. We are our own worst enemies.
This is because of two generations (at least) of government skewlz teaching kids not to think, but only to her nd obey, not to bar any responsibility for their actions but to point the finger elsewhere, not to learn how to resolve interpesonalconflicts, but to take “time outs” and learn avoidance tactics.
And those promoting the “thinking” you describe are the very ones who have assured these generations are so ill equipped to deal with lifes little foibles and disappointments.
TN_MAN:
I have recently spoken with a friend of a neighbor who hates Trump and absolutely worships Clinton and Obama. We were taking about NYC where I used to live and I mentioned the Empire State Building. This crazy liberal said he would never go there or any other high place because he has an uncontrollable urge to jump off. I wanted to suggest he visit the Grand Canyon for his next vacation. This makes perfect sense as Biden and his puppet masters are pushing America over the cliff to destruction.
@ Tom606 – “This makes perfect sense as Biden and his puppet masters are pushing America over the cliff to destruction.”
Indeed! The actions of the American Left remind me of the following quote:
“Thus hath the candle sing’d the moth.
O, these deliberate fools! When they do choose,
They have the wisdom by their wit to lose.”
William Shakespeare – The Merchant of Venice – Act 2 – Scene 9
TN_MAN:
Dang! You’re a literary scholar and a fan of the Bard too. With such a vast and broad knowledge of different subjects, you should go on the TV game show Jeopardy. Maybe you’ll win an AR-15 🙂
Tom606:
I have to, modestly, admit that I happen to be re-reading “The Merchant of Venice” (along with binge-watching Netflix’s “The Queen’s Gambit”) at this particular moment-in-time.
That is why I was able to dig up this particular quote from the Bard so quickly. It shames me to say so but I have not committed all of the works of Shakespeare to memory just yet! 🙂
Once I do so, I reckon that I will qualify to appear on Jeopardy and win that free AR-15. I can always use another one!
Great to be reminded of similarities between the English and American Bills of Right regarding our 2A. Wondering now when England’s legal distinctions between nobles and commoners became formalized. Characters from some of the late novelist Louis L’Amour’s westerns often mention the English legal savant Sir William Blackstone, who passed away in 1780, in what could be regarded the early years of the American Revolution. I am now curious to what degree English Law in the American colonies went out the window or not, and how, the timetable, and Blackstone’s lasting influence. Louis was obviously gung-ho 2A. Bless him!
Somewhere in the past week or so I read a claim that the Virginia Colony was granted (from Parliment? Colonial Secretary?) an exception to the existing English law on bearing arms. They referenced something in the 1300s I think.
Not sure about all the particulars of how Jamestown colonists were given permission to be armed, but James I is the one who had a council formed to draw up their first charter. Pretty sure he didn’t personally pick those council members, so maybe they had to make an exemption appeal. But if you read the First Virginia Charter, you will see that colonists were to be given “armour, weapon, ordonnance, powder, victall, and all other thinges necessarie for the saide plantacions and for theire use and defence there.”
That’s a pretty strong endorsement. This is because England had decades of previous experience with Indians in the New World (Lost Colony, especially) and they still hated the Spanish. Given that, and because the authority of the council began with the King himself, it doesn’t seem likely to me that the Virginia Company had to jump through hoops to get arms and armor. But yeah, the King had to have signed off on it.
I will add that even though the King controlled most of the weapons in the country, some of the rural gentry of England was allowed to keep arms on their property. About a third of the first colonists at Jamestown were of the gentry class and brought their personal weapons.
Anyway. Yours truly,
History goofball born in Virginia
The second amendment doesn’t grant or give anyone anything what it does do is recognize the birth right, natural inalienable right actually to We the People and our founding fathers were very clear it’s intention was so the people had a means to defeat a tyrannical government the way they themselves did. Heller and that tyrant usurper Scalia said about the second amendment “like most right’s, the second amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” he wrote this in his majority opinion and he’s not only 100″ incorrect but there’s zero, absolutely nothing in any of the writings of our founding fathers did they ever even remotely hint that the government had any authority to tell the people what they could or couldn’t own..however this is why Republicans and cuckservatives are domestic enemies no different than Democrats. Both political parties want you to believe the only people who have an absolute second amendment right are the military and even worse the police…the very same militarized police that has enforced every single unconstitutional and illegal “law” with qualified immunity making them the very standing army and domestic enemies our founding fathers warned us about… which is why Republicans and cuckservatives demand the people blindly worship these modern day red coats. I say this as a former member of the NYC Housing Police and NYPD, the police today have proven there isn’t any law they won’t murder you for and blindly worshipping them will no doubt bring a fierce and harsh reality to those people who follow the Republican/cuckservative party line to their own demise. Heller is only touted by those same domestic enemy Republicans because it protected a police officer and not We the People. Unless someone can show me where in the second amendment the police, military and government are given more rights than We the People I stand firmly on my statements. We either have a natural inalienable right to keep and bear arms or we don’t.
I suspect that the view noticed by TH_MAN reflects the Leftist/Marxist view that an individual is totally the product of his/her environment. That is reflected in their view that anyone can do any job, even if they are an illiterate, impulsive fool. Hence “Affirmative Action” and the CRT. But it is so unfair to exclude people for high level jobs just because they can’t read, rite of do numbers. They just as good in other ways.
Reading the interview, I got the distinct impression Judge Luttig was citing cases he had researched, while David was working from material he knew cold.
This is, somewhat, off-topic but represents an important current event.
If anyone on this site had any concerns, even for a moment, the the Kyle Rittenhouse trial had some basis in fact and some possible justification. If anyone thought that there might have been any legitimacy in the State’s charges or had doubts about this all being an orchestrated, politically-motivated, left-wing Show Trial, then the information presented by Andrew Branca (in the following link concerning the testimony developed by Rittenhouse’s Defense Team) should remove all doubt.
This whole thing has been orchestrated to torture Kyle Rittenhouse with legal troubles and, if possible, railroad him into prison. It was so orchestrated from day one. Even as the initial investigation was underway, the conspiracy to railroad Rittenhouse was being created and set-in-motion:
Please see the following link:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-2-did-prosecution-improperly-conspire-entire-trial/
BTW, you won’t see a word about this in any of the reporting on this case by the Anti-American Media. The media will bury it with a steam-shovel!
TN_MAN,
You say Kyle Rittenhouse is being railroaded? I seem to remember our previous President being impeached twice, and having to endure a three-year-long investigation into collusion he may have had with Russians. We know Hillary colluded with Russians, but that is OK. Another self-defense case, the McCloskeys, had a long trial, and I think their guns were taken away, even though they never fired a shot, and no one was harmed. Railroaded?
How about Trump supporters who got a little too rambunctious on January 6th, and have spent months in solitary confinement. Yet, Antifa and BLM members, who rioted for sometimes 100 days, not just one, and burned innocent businesses to the ground, after looting them, while not wearing masks, have not been put in jail for even a day.
I think I see a pattern here. It looks like one side of the political divide gets to persecute members of the other side, railroading them, while their own members are free to riot, burn and loot. I wonder how all of this will play out in the future?
@ Roger Willco,
What you say is the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.
The Left has penetrated and corrupted the American Justice System as they have done to so many other agencies and institutions across America and across the World.
Lady Justice is (traditionally) depicted as a female, robed, and blindfolded figure. She is also shown holding a sword to punish wrong-doing, in one hand, and a pair of scales in the other. However, the American Left has corrupted Lady Justice and turned her into their Prostitute.
If she were to be properly depicted as she appears today, this is the way she would look:
1) She would no longer wear a blindfold or robes. She would no longer carry a pair of scales. However, she would still be shown as a female but, now, she would be shown as a sultry prostitute.
2) She would still hold a sword, in one hand, but it would have only a single-edged blade. It would be a sword that only punishes the enemies of the American Left.
3) In her other hand, she would now hold a shield. A shield that has only one purpose. To protect members of the American Left from any punishment that they deserve due to THEIR criminal behavior.
4) Finally, she would be depicted as almost naked. She would only be wearing a thong into which the American Left can stuff cash to buy her favors.
That is the modern, updated image of Lady Justice here in 21st Century America.
The present situation we find ourselves facing has been approaching for a very long time. In the end, there is only one reason that our elected officials are so determined to remove the 2nd Amendment and ultimately our personal liberties. It is tyranny. First, consider the following from another era.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows all conquerors who have allowed the subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.” Adolf Hitler
Then there are other clues such as the following; “When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of communism. We will not take it under the label socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much. We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under liberalism, under progressivism, under democracy. But, take it we will.” –Alexander Trachtenberg at the National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944
You may have noticed over the past year or so that our system of government is often being referred to as “our democracy” even by our elected officials. It is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic founded on democratic principles. Plato wrote in ‘The Republic’, ”And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy.” (Book VIII, page 264.)
If you would seek to understand the difference read Federalist Papers 9 and 10 written by Hamilton and Madison respectively
The gradual destruction of our educational systems and our history at all levels is the foundational move by those who would oppress us
“The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.” Karl Marx
“I believe the primary role of the state is to teach, train and raise children. Parents have a secondary role.” Hillary Clinton
So, we have been warned time and again and now we are face to face with the choice of America or Tyranny.
Which will we choose?
There are a lot of people, mainly leftists but some on the Right too, that are not “thinking straight” about the Rittenhouse case. They are viewing it through the lens of their own personal morality or ideology. Instead, they need to view it through a legal lens. Here is an example of “fuzzy-headed thinking”:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2021/11/5/22765491/kyle-rittenhouse-jury-self-defense
These people all come out as viewing Kyle Rittenhouse as either (a) the original aggressor or (by) the initial fool who kick-started the conflict just by being there, armed and breathing.
The error in these people’s minds comes from two (2) incorrect (or ignorant) views of the matter.
First, these people all have a concept of “Original Sin” in their minds. To them, it was a “Sin” for a 17-Year old Rittenhouse to even be in the riot zone in the first place. It was a “Sin” for his parents to allow him to go. Finally, it was a “Sin” from him to be armed with one of those horrible, nasty, black, assault rifle things. So, from their point-of-view, these “Original Sins” of Rittenhouse make him a sort of “foundational’ aggressor. His “Original Sins” make the sins of his attackers (who chased him, tried to beat him with skate-boards, etc. tried to disarm him so that they could then kill him) sort of “justified”. Their view might be best expressed with the idea that Kyle “made his bed” and when the “Peaceful Protestors” tried to make him “lie in it”, Kyle “cheated” and shot his way off of the bed. This is all “Wrong-Think” with respect to the law although it might be “Right-Think” with respect to Woke Ideology.
Secondly, these people seem totally ignorant of the concept of legal “innocence” and, especially, they have no understanding of the concept of “Re-gaining innocence”. Basically, these people believe that being innocent is one thing while the law has a different definition.
From the legal point-of-view, being “innocent” does not mean that one has lived as a Saint all of his life and is “without sin”. Yet, that is the view that these “Original Sin” folks are giving it. From their point of view, Kyle has this “Original Sin” and can, therefore, never be innocent. His lack of innocence means that this could not be self-defense and, so, Kyle is guilty of murder. Case closed. Send him to prison for life.
However, the law does not take this “Original Sin” approach. The law sees events as a series of disputes between people. The law wants to promote peace. Therefore, the law rewards peace-makers and says that they are innocent. The “aggressors” who start conflicts are said to “lose their innocence”. The law rewards the innocent with a Right of Self-Defense but takes it away from aggressors who have lost their innocence.
Furthermore, the law has this concept of regaining innocence. So, an aggressor who has lost his innocence may regain it by becoming a peacemaker and withdrawing from the fight. The law looks at each individual conflict in a bottle. It does not care who had “Original Sin” hours, days or weeks ago. It only cares about who is the immediate aggressor and who is innocent.
This is what the “Original Sin” accusers are not understanding. The original sins of Kyle Rittenhouse DON’T MATTER A DAMN. All that matters is, who is the aggressor and who is innocent in the specific conflict under analysis.
So, when Rittenhouse told Rosenbaum”Peaceful, Peaceful, Peaceful” and then retreated, he regained his innocence. All his Original Sins where washed away and forgiven because he entered the Holy Estate of being a Peacemaker. Yea, all his sins were washed away. He became the innocence lamb with a fleece as white as snow.
When Rosenbaum ignored Rittenhouse’s “Olive Branch of Peace” and lunged after him anyway while screaming “F#$K You!”, then he became the sinful aggressor. The one who FORCED this conflict to continue by his wicked and violent actions.
His act to try to assault and disarm Rittenhouse became a “Lethal Force” attack since, if he did ever gain control of the rifle, Rittenhouse had to assume that the rifle would then be used to murder him. So, Rittenhouse’s lethal response was JUSTIFIED because he was the innocent Party under attack while Rosenbaum was the evil aggressor who got shot for his murderous attack.
The other shootings followed a similar pattern.
So, hopefully, the folks who keep beating the drum that “Kyle Rittenhouse has ORIGINAL SIN and must PAY FOR IT” can understand how WRONG this view is from a legal perspective.
I just pray to God that the Judge in this case explains the law to the jury so that any of the “Original Sin” gang on the jury will realize that the law views it differently and they are sworn to follow the law rather than this “Original Sin” horse manure.
A correction to my comment above. I see from news reports that the words that Kyle Rittenhouse shouted to Rosenbaum were “friendly, friendly, friendly” rather than “peaceful, peaceful, peaceful”. Nevertheless, my point is still valid. Rittenhouse’s actions to retreat, and his words of reconciliation, both indicated a clear message that he wished to withdraw from any conflict with Rosenbaum and end all dispute.
His words and his actions clearly established him as the “Peacemaker” in this conflict. In contrast, the aggressive foot pursuit, attacking lunge, previous threats and hateful words, and (especially) his attempt to disarm Rittenhouse, all make Rosenbaum the aggressor.
Rittenhouse’s innocence is, in my view, established beyond all dispute. Even if it is granted that Rittenhouse had some earlier “Original Sins” on this hands, these were all “washed away” (from a legal perspective) by his clear withdrawal from the conflict and his extension of an “Olive Branch of Peace” to Rosenbaum.
In other words, any previous “lost innocence” was regained and, legally, Rittenhouse became the innocent party. All previous sins washed away by his noble act of becoming the “Peacemaker”.
It is like what the Good Book says:
Matthew 5:9-12: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Notice how Kyle Rittenhouse went to help people, then got involved in a tough situation. The writer of the article (Mark Brown) linked to by TN_MAN, thinks Kyle should have stayed home.
Compare Kyle’s actions with the inaction of the subway riders who filmed a 40-minute rape. I guess they were smarter than Kyle. Would Mark Brown approve of their inaction, of their unwillingness to help the rape victim? After all, they didn’t hurt anyone. They stayed out of trouble, unlike Kyle, who ran into trouble. I guess Mark Brown would prefer to live in a neighborhood of inactive subway riders. I prefer heroes like Kyle.
Possibly there may be some bias also because Kyle, who is probably a Republican, was shooting criminals who were probably Democrats. I don’t know if Mark Brown, or anyone else, would think about politics during a chaotic, fire filled night of rioting, when the streets were abandoned by the police. Mark Brown doesn’t like vigilantes. When the police retreat, the only good people remaining are victims, potential victims, and vigilantes.
I’m sure some readers still think Kyle Rittenhouse should have stayed home. He had no business going to a dangerous place. Technically, you are correct. It is prudent to avoid trouble, and places where trouble is known to occur. A person who does that could be called smart and noble. But a person who puts him or herself in danger, when they could stay safe at home, is even more noble. That person is a hero. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play cop, or medic, or trying to be a hero. That is noble behavior, and it should be encouraged.
The people who shot back at Charles Whitman, while he was up on that tower, didn’t have to do that. After they shot back at him, he had to retreat from the edge of the tower, and never killed anyone after that. The two men who went up and shot Charles probably didn’t have to do that. I can’t remember if one was a cop or not, but both were not cops.
Every war in the twentieth century could have been avoided by America. Or, in WWII, we could have fought a defensive action. In order to defend our homeland, it was not necessary to go all the way to Berlin and Tokyo. We acted like heroes, injecting ourselves into troubled areas in WWI to help the French, and the other wars were also fought to help others. I think it may be possible to argue that American men should not have been drafted to go and be heroes for other countries. Pat Buchanan would make that point, and he is probably right.
Yes, if Kyle had stayed home that night he would not be in trouble, and two goblins would still be alive. Even if you think it is wrong to be a wannabe cop, Kyle should not be punished for his actions. He did nothing wrong. His intentions were good. Tactically, it is too bad he didn’t have backup, and found himself alone, but bad things happen all the time in combat. It is very confusing. He should not be punished for trying to be a Good Samaritan.
Well said. BTW, an armed citizen led the two cops to the top of the Texas Tower and fired the first shot of the final confrontation, though it was the cops who killed the mad sniper.
Comments are closed.