An excellent opinion piece by Judge Napolitano!
Money bits:
- It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and
historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks —
“surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other
folks have used that same type of weapon criminally” — to be impaired in
the name of public safety.
- It would also be irrational. A person willing
to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely
would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that
prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.
- The government can no more interfere with Second Amendment rights than
it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no
liberty — speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy,
travel, property ownership — would be safe from the reach of a fearful
majority.
Anti-firearm forces have been nibbling away at the the right to keep and bear arms for years, slowly "boiling the frog" one bite at a time. Because the underlying issues involved in mass killing sprees, it is clear none of these will work - even a total ban were it to be attempted.
1. We have been unable to keep illicit drugs from entering this country no matter Herculean efforts. Do we really think we can keep guns from coming across our southern and northern borders?
2. Even if every law-abiding gun-owning citizen were willing to turn in their firearms, will the firearms in the hands of criminals also be turned in. Is that not out of character for a criminal?
3. It is assumed that law-abiding citizens will willingly do so. Therein lies a great conundrum; crime with firearms is committed by non law-abiding people. So passing a law requiring the turn-in of firearms relies on people's willingness to follow the law. Hence, you are only disarming the least threatening elements in society.
4. Of course, as I have noted before, the assumption that law-abiding citizens will comply is faulty.
Thursday, August 8, 2019
True hate - and hypocrisy - on display
Imagine this: A movie in which the dreaded "militias" all set out to hunt down all those peaceful democrat supporters out there. [I know, it's clearly fantasy]. Imagine, if you will, the wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth, and twisting of panties.
Now imagine a movie in which "deplorables" are hunted down ("The Hunt"). And please don't try to deny that you know who the "deplorables" are!
Now, riddle me this: How is this not inciting violence? How is this not the kind of thing that the Dayton or El Paso shooter would have found motivational? In fact, it has been reported that the Dayton shooter (yes, the Warren supporter) enjoyed watching videos of mass killings. Now he could - if the scumbag had lived - see it on the big screen - and then shoot up the theater. Of course, it would all be the gun's, gun owners' and NRA's fault.
So, their point is: Violence and hate are bad, unless they are directed at the right group. This movie - and every democrat candidate for POTUS - have clearly identified who that "right group" is. Please use critical thinking and evaluate this presentation in combination with a desire to disarm law-abiding gun owners. Remember that we are all deplorable because we are all complicit in their eyes. If you are a member of the NRA or GOA or any other 2A-supporting organization, then you are considered a domestic terrorist.
Don't think for an instant that these "deplorables" will so sheepishly go to the slaughter you have planned. You may be about to learn what the Second Amendment was actually intended to accomplish.
I reiterate here what I now consider highly likely consequences of this divisive and dangerous democrat strategy:
- A lot of people are not going to turn firearms in willingly, not going to hand over their rightfully-owned property. Plenty of data support this, not only in the US where bans and "buybacks" have been widely ignored, but in other nations where this tyranny has been enacted.
- Willing people with guns will be needed to "come and take" them from armed non-compliant citizens. So guns will be left in the hands of government to enforce this unconstitutional mandate. This merely proves how prescient the founders were in codifying the illegality of infringement and the sanctity of the right to keep and bear arms.
-The first line of traitors who will attempt confiscate arms will be drawn from local Law Enforcement. A lot of LEOs will refuse to enforce such laws. It is likely, especially in some urban areas and Socialist states, that ample traitors will violate their oaths. This will put LEO on both sides of this conflict. In my State, there are Sheriffs who will not suborn such infringement and may act against it.
- Those traitors who do comply and enlist to enforce confiscatory actions are going to have to go house-to-house in some locales to retrieve them. This will not only be in the suburbs, but in high density population centers as well (less likely that the efforts will ensue in rural locales). Those affected by this confiscation will represent a wide range of races, ethnicity and ages. This may even serve to unite groups that have previously been at odds, given a common enemy - at least for a while. This will be a massive undertaking in what will be significantly hostile environments - and such environments favor the defender unless methods of mass destruction are used (If you don't think so, ponder why areas of cities like Baltimore and Chicago are basically no-enforcement zones. Consider LEOs being assaulted with water and buckets in NYC or harassed in Philly while under siege from a career criminal gunman).
- When those in uniform carrying guns knock on your door or kick it in, announcing they are there to take your property by force, the first thing it should do is bring up images of all of the totalitarian regimes in history. Here are armed representatives of your government, forcibly entering your domicile, demanding that you turn over your property, threatening you and yours with bodily harm if you do not. Be sure if this happens you have the cameras rolling to create a historical record for broadcast as proof of the imposition of unconstitutional law by lethal force. I think the LEOs who defy their oath will soon find that "Blue Lives Matter" is contingent on them being faithful to their oath, not the unlawful whims of politicians and government. Many who believe blue lives matter will also resist confiscation.
- Lethal force is justified no matter the law. Yes, I know - Castle Doctrine has exceptions for LEO who are there in an LE capacity. But, frankly, once the Inherent Rights of the Individual, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are violated and infringement is in progress, protection of ourselves, our loved ones and our "Castle" now reflects the existence and precedence of common and natural law - since their actions are without true rule of law and have abrogated any other legal consideration. Remember, the Second Amendment did not create the right, it merely asserts that the existing right shall be not be infringed upon by government.
- There will be blood - on all sides. Betty and Bobby Suburban (who probably applauded gun confiscation) will be woken up by the gunshots at the next-door neighbors' house, as the traitor police make entry and the law-abiding homeowner is forced to defend himself, his family, his property and his rights. Hell, they will probably be the ones who called police to report a "Red Flag" warning. They may be woken up by the neighbor they turned in using the "Report your local rifle owner" hotline. Either one of these may become fairly common occurrences, along with SWATting and Red-Flagging.
- Given that most Americans do not even have the hearts or fortitude for long protracted violent engagements on the other side of the world, and have shown a great reticence to defend their own nation against enemies, foreign and domestic, for how long is it likely they will have it for door-to-door operations in their own neighborhood? I suspect not for long.
Now imagine a movie in which "deplorables" are hunted down ("The Hunt"). And please don't try to deny that you know who the "deplorables" are!
Now, riddle me this: How is this not inciting violence? How is this not the kind of thing that the Dayton or El Paso shooter would have found motivational? In fact, it has been reported that the Dayton shooter (yes, the Warren supporter) enjoyed watching videos of mass killings. Now he could - if the scumbag had lived - see it on the big screen - and then shoot up the theater. Of course, it would all be the gun's, gun owners' and NRA's fault.
So, their point is: Violence and hate are bad, unless they are directed at the right group. This movie - and every democrat candidate for POTUS - have clearly identified who that "right group" is. Please use critical thinking and evaluate this presentation in combination with a desire to disarm law-abiding gun owners. Remember that we are all deplorable because we are all complicit in their eyes. If you are a member of the NRA or GOA or any other 2A-supporting organization, then you are considered a domestic terrorist.
Don't think for an instant that these "deplorables" will so sheepishly go to the slaughter you have planned. You may be about to learn what the Second Amendment was actually intended to accomplish.
I reiterate here what I now consider highly likely consequences of this divisive and dangerous democrat strategy:
- A lot of people are not going to turn firearms in willingly, not going to hand over their rightfully-owned property. Plenty of data support this, not only in the US where bans and "buybacks" have been widely ignored, but in other nations where this tyranny has been enacted.
- Willing people with guns will be needed to "come and take" them from armed non-compliant citizens. So guns will be left in the hands of government to enforce this unconstitutional mandate. This merely proves how prescient the founders were in codifying the illegality of infringement and the sanctity of the right to keep and bear arms.
-The first line of traitors who will attempt confiscate arms will be drawn from local Law Enforcement. A lot of LEOs will refuse to enforce such laws. It is likely, especially in some urban areas and Socialist states, that ample traitors will violate their oaths. This will put LEO on both sides of this conflict. In my State, there are Sheriffs who will not suborn such infringement and may act against it.
- Those traitors who do comply and enlist to enforce confiscatory actions are going to have to go house-to-house in some locales to retrieve them. This will not only be in the suburbs, but in high density population centers as well (less likely that the efforts will ensue in rural locales). Those affected by this confiscation will represent a wide range of races, ethnicity and ages. This may even serve to unite groups that have previously been at odds, given a common enemy - at least for a while. This will be a massive undertaking in what will be significantly hostile environments - and such environments favor the defender unless methods of mass destruction are used (If you don't think so, ponder why areas of cities like Baltimore and Chicago are basically no-enforcement zones. Consider LEOs being assaulted with water and buckets in NYC or harassed in Philly while under siege from a career criminal gunman).
- When those in uniform carrying guns knock on your door or kick it in, announcing they are there to take your property by force, the first thing it should do is bring up images of all of the totalitarian regimes in history. Here are armed representatives of your government, forcibly entering your domicile, demanding that you turn over your property, threatening you and yours with bodily harm if you do not. Be sure if this happens you have the cameras rolling to create a historical record for broadcast as proof of the imposition of unconstitutional law by lethal force. I think the LEOs who defy their oath will soon find that "Blue Lives Matter" is contingent on them being faithful to their oath, not the unlawful whims of politicians and government. Many who believe blue lives matter will also resist confiscation.
- Lethal force is justified no matter the law. Yes, I know - Castle Doctrine has exceptions for LEO who are there in an LE capacity. But, frankly, once the Inherent Rights of the Individual, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are violated and infringement is in progress, protection of ourselves, our loved ones and our "Castle" now reflects the existence and precedence of common and natural law - since their actions are without true rule of law and have abrogated any other legal consideration. Remember, the Second Amendment did not create the right, it merely asserts that the existing right shall be not be infringed upon by government.
- There will be blood - on all sides. Betty and Bobby Suburban (who probably applauded gun confiscation) will be woken up by the gunshots at the next-door neighbors' house, as the traitor police make entry and the law-abiding homeowner is forced to defend himself, his family, his property and his rights. Hell, they will probably be the ones who called police to report a "Red Flag" warning. They may be woken up by the neighbor they turned in using the "Report your local rifle owner" hotline. Either one of these may become fairly common occurrences, along with SWATting and Red-Flagging.
- Given that most Americans do not even have the hearts or fortitude for long protracted violent engagements on the other side of the world, and have shown a great reticence to defend their own nation against enemies, foreign and domestic, for how long is it likely they will have it for door-to-door operations in their own neighborhood? I suspect not for long.
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Red Flag Laws - the pitfalls
RED FLAG LAWS
Sad to see so many conservatives - most notably sad to see Dan Crenshaw join in - have decided to jump on this idea of Red Flag Laws. While on the face of it, such laws sound like reasonable proposals, there are numerous issues to be dealt with.
1. What will be required to trigger the execution of a Red Flag complaint?
So far, I am not seeing any detailed language. I have seen "Court Order" mentioned. But how is the process initiated? Who can initiate it? IS there going to be a "report your neighbor" hotline? What kind of investigation will be needed in order to get a "Court Order" for removal? How long will the whole process take?
Unless one has been living under a rock, they are probably aware of the use of SWATting by some individuals. For those who have not, per Wikipedia "Swatting is the harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person's address". So, make a 911 call of a domestic disturbance or MWAG at a given address and the LE arrive with guns drawn. In the worst-case scenario, the home owner hears the commotion, suspects a home invasion in progress and answers the door with a gun in his hand (there have already been cases of LEOs shooting homeowners through their own front door). The rest is an "Oh, well, so sorry" story we have seen before. Combine this idea with the progressive tactic of "doxxing" - again per Wikipedia "Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information about an individual or organization" and you will have progressive militants passing around identifying information on conservatives in their area so that such calls can be made.
How farfetched is it that progressives, especially AntiFA, will use these tactics to submit accusations against conservatives? Not at all. They and progressives in general have already shown their willingness to use extreme measures in pursuit of their goals.
There will need to be many details worked out in order to protect the law-abiding from this sort of tactic. We cannot, in attempting to protect innocent lives from crazy people, sacrifice law-abiding peaceful citizens. [Of course this is what those hoping to ban guns ultimately desire - since we do the same thing when we ban guns - punish the law-abiding for the act of the criminal].
2. What provisions will be in place to punish those who knowingly make unfounded complaints or reports?
Given the above, there will be a need for swift and strong repercussions for false reports. Of course, let's be honest; no proposed punishment for false reporting will be sufficient to make up for the death of a law-abiding gun owner. It is obvious that those who support this idea prefer to inconvenience and even unlawfully detain and disarm gun owners as a means to try to end the carnage. Sadly, when it is clear it does not work, they will simply move on to the next dumb idea. On its face, it seems logical. But when the inevitable scenarios above come to fruition, we will be trading deaths for deaths. But the progressives will not consider the law-abiding gun owner's death as tragic.
So what protections will be in place? What consequences for false accusation? Unless draconian and swift, these laws will be nothing more than an invitation to attack gun owners and I am sure everyone who reports will have a sincere sense of "good faith" in their report. Right!
3. What provisions will be in place for reinstating unjustly removed rights from those who are found competent and stable?
Given that many reports will be false-positives, what provisions will be in place for rapid investigation, exoneration, and restoration of rights and property? For those who are lucky enough to survive the first encounter, when a SWAT team shows up at their door with a court order, who are then even more fortunate to be found competent to retain their rights and property (given that the underlying principle will likely be "guilty until proven innocent"), how will this be done in an expeditious manner?
4. Does this do more than just deal with the firearm? What about the person or their issues?
Do such laws also mandate involuntary hospitalization? Are the same standards of "danger to self or others" taken into account? Will we take away someone's firearms but send them home to hop in their car, pull out a machete or simply bludgeon someone to death? If the person is deemed too dysfunctional to possess firearms, what else can be done for them? Apparently these laws are only concerned with removing one possible too for violence, as if it is the firearm that contains the violence (which seems to describe many people's opinion).
5. Most psychologists, if they are honest, will tell you how bad we are at accurately predicting violence.
We hear so many politicians, pundits, and police remark on the need for routine mental health evaluation in order to purchase a firearm. As a psychologist I will only note that we are really not at all good at predicting who will commit such acts of violence. Violence, like all behavior, is an ever-shifting mix of person place and situation. It is clear that, when presented with acts of violence like we saw this weekend, we quickly look at the background and say "Well that was obvious". But in a prospective manner, such things are hard to predict and the histories of many mass/active killers may not be so dissimilar from others who will never commit such violence. We are likely to have many false-positives, and while it is better to have false-positives than fals4 negatives, we have to contend with all of the issues above.
Especially in these days of social media, many people display behavior and parts of themselves that they would not normally show and are likely to make comments they might not normally make, play a persona they wish they could be, but are not (Often referred to as "Internet tough guys"). Very few of those will ever act. Many people have thoughts and emotions that appear violent in nature, but whose behavior is not violent. We have seen several democrat candidates for POTUS remark with violent imagery and rhetoric, yet no one has thrown the red flag on them yet.
What the history and background of many of these cases tells us is that we need to address "normalcy bias." That is, when confronted with unusual actions or behaviors, people will put considerable mental effort into explaining it away, forcing it to fit into a picture of normalcy. The Dayton shooter had kill lists and rape lists and a long history of behavior that was threatening. The Parkland shooter had a long history of violence and threatening behavior. Both, and many others of similar bent, were seen by others and feared by others, yet n no one did anything. For some reason both, apparently were allowed to go their way, whether people found a way to explain it to themselves as "normal" or people simply were unwilling to risk taking the actions necessary to contain the threat.
Later, they find great comfort in blaming the firearm and anyone who owns one.
Sad to see so many conservatives - most notably sad to see Dan Crenshaw join in - have decided to jump on this idea of Red Flag Laws. While on the face of it, such laws sound like reasonable proposals, there are numerous issues to be dealt with.
1. What will be required to trigger the execution of a Red Flag complaint?
So far, I am not seeing any detailed language. I have seen "Court Order" mentioned. But how is the process initiated? Who can initiate it? IS there going to be a "report your neighbor" hotline? What kind of investigation will be needed in order to get a "Court Order" for removal? How long will the whole process take?
Unless one has been living under a rock, they are probably aware of the use of SWATting by some individuals. For those who have not, per Wikipedia "Swatting is the harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person's address". So, make a 911 call of a domestic disturbance or MWAG at a given address and the LE arrive with guns drawn. In the worst-case scenario, the home owner hears the commotion, suspects a home invasion in progress and answers the door with a gun in his hand (there have already been cases of LEOs shooting homeowners through their own front door). The rest is an "Oh, well, so sorry" story we have seen before. Combine this idea with the progressive tactic of "doxxing" - again per Wikipedia "Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information about an individual or organization" and you will have progressive militants passing around identifying information on conservatives in their area so that such calls can be made.
How farfetched is it that progressives, especially AntiFA, will use these tactics to submit accusations against conservatives? Not at all. They and progressives in general have already shown their willingness to use extreme measures in pursuit of their goals.
There will need to be many details worked out in order to protect the law-abiding from this sort of tactic. We cannot, in attempting to protect innocent lives from crazy people, sacrifice law-abiding peaceful citizens. [Of course this is what those hoping to ban guns ultimately desire - since we do the same thing when we ban guns - punish the law-abiding for the act of the criminal].
2. What provisions will be in place to punish those who knowingly make unfounded complaints or reports?
Given the above, there will be a need for swift and strong repercussions for false reports. Of course, let's be honest; no proposed punishment for false reporting will be sufficient to make up for the death of a law-abiding gun owner. It is obvious that those who support this idea prefer to inconvenience and even unlawfully detain and disarm gun owners as a means to try to end the carnage. Sadly, when it is clear it does not work, they will simply move on to the next dumb idea. On its face, it seems logical. But when the inevitable scenarios above come to fruition, we will be trading deaths for deaths. But the progressives will not consider the law-abiding gun owner's death as tragic.
So what protections will be in place? What consequences for false accusation? Unless draconian and swift, these laws will be nothing more than an invitation to attack gun owners and I am sure everyone who reports will have a sincere sense of "good faith" in their report. Right!
3. What provisions will be in place for reinstating unjustly removed rights from those who are found competent and stable?
Given that many reports will be false-positives, what provisions will be in place for rapid investigation, exoneration, and restoration of rights and property? For those who are lucky enough to survive the first encounter, when a SWAT team shows up at their door with a court order, who are then even more fortunate to be found competent to retain their rights and property (given that the underlying principle will likely be "guilty until proven innocent"), how will this be done in an expeditious manner?
4. Does this do more than just deal with the firearm? What about the person or their issues?
Do such laws also mandate involuntary hospitalization? Are the same standards of "danger to self or others" taken into account? Will we take away someone's firearms but send them home to hop in their car, pull out a machete or simply bludgeon someone to death? If the person is deemed too dysfunctional to possess firearms, what else can be done for them? Apparently these laws are only concerned with removing one possible too for violence, as if it is the firearm that contains the violence (which seems to describe many people's opinion).
5. Most psychologists, if they are honest, will tell you how bad we are at accurately predicting violence.
We hear so many politicians, pundits, and police remark on the need for routine mental health evaluation in order to purchase a firearm. As a psychologist I will only note that we are really not at all good at predicting who will commit such acts of violence. Violence, like all behavior, is an ever-shifting mix of person place and situation. It is clear that, when presented with acts of violence like we saw this weekend, we quickly look at the background and say "Well that was obvious". But in a prospective manner, such things are hard to predict and the histories of many mass/active killers may not be so dissimilar from others who will never commit such violence. We are likely to have many false-positives, and while it is better to have false-positives than fals4 negatives, we have to contend with all of the issues above.
Especially in these days of social media, many people display behavior and parts of themselves that they would not normally show and are likely to make comments they might not normally make, play a persona they wish they could be, but are not (Often referred to as "Internet tough guys"). Very few of those will ever act. Many people have thoughts and emotions that appear violent in nature, but whose behavior is not violent. We have seen several democrat candidates for POTUS remark with violent imagery and rhetoric, yet no one has thrown the red flag on them yet.
What the history and background of many of these cases tells us is that we need to address "normalcy bias." That is, when confronted with unusual actions or behaviors, people will put considerable mental effort into explaining it away, forcing it to fit into a picture of normalcy. The Dayton shooter had kill lists and rape lists and a long history of behavior that was threatening. The Parkland shooter had a long history of violence and threatening behavior. Both, and many others of similar bent, were seen by others and feared by others, yet n no one did anything. For some reason both, apparently were allowed to go their way, whether people found a way to explain it to themselves as "normal" or people simply were unwilling to risk taking the actions necessary to contain the threat.
Later, they find great comfort in blaming the firearm and anyone who owns one.
El Paso, Dayton, Red Flags and the true hate
Tragedies this weekend. The death toll rises in El Paso.
Two shooters, representing both poles of our current divide, too much hate,
I won't recount all of the potentially divisive and "hateful" (I hate that word) things our POTUS has said. I will note that most often he is accused of hate more for his delivery than his content. He is not careful with his words and I think it diminishes his message. But his ideas of protecting our sovereignty and borders are sound and his expectation that those who serve disadvantaged districts should support their constituents and not unlawful entrants to our country makes good sense.
What I would like to do is shine a light on the fact that those screaming about "hatred" have done nothing but stoke the fires they want us to believe they are against.
First, while the only thing the media seem interested in is the "manifesto" of the El Paso killer, there has been little scrutiny or notice of the progressive political leanings of the Dayton killer. Apparently, to progressives, it is okay to hate as long as you hate the right people.
How peaceful are the progressives?
- I have to start with Reza Azlan. Very little commentary is needed on these two tweets (I hate that word, too):
- What does Bozo O'Rourke think the effect of his words, such as "Jesus Christ, of course he's a racist" might be? Yea, next to Azlan these are amateurish grade-school taunts. But I work in the mental health field and I know there are plenty of unwell people out there who hear a phrase Bozo's or Azlan's and consider it a justification, in invitation to do violence. It only gets worse when they add that "and all his supporters are "racists" too."
- This same logic follows from statements from others, for instance AOC, when referring to CBP and ICE officers as "nazis" and lawful holding centers as "Concentration camps". Has the same MSM called out her for rhetoric that most certainly lead to the recent attempts to shoot up a center by an AntiFA militant? That was not hate speech?
Again - their message is clear: It is okay to hate as long as you hate the right person/people. Some protected classes of people are not to be disrespected.
While it's clear that rhetoric like the above might motivate the militant wing of the progressive movement, such as AntiFA what is not as easily recognized is how hate speech from the left might also motivate action by mentally unhealthy conservatives.
The left has spent generations now, telling us that acting out and criminal behavior within certain segments of our population are a function of having been oppressed and downtrodden. They have bent over backward to excuse such behavior. Yet they cannot see how being called a nazi, a white nationalist, a racist and a long list of others when one is none-of-the-above might be the new form of institutional hatred and lead to violent action. When you keep telling the "bad" kid he is bad and will never be any better, sometimes he comes to agree and decides that he will be the "baddest bad kid" he can be.
Two shooters, representing both poles of our current divide, too much hate,
I won't recount all of the potentially divisive and "hateful" (I hate that word) things our POTUS has said. I will note that most often he is accused of hate more for his delivery than his content. He is not careful with his words and I think it diminishes his message. But his ideas of protecting our sovereignty and borders are sound and his expectation that those who serve disadvantaged districts should support their constituents and not unlawful entrants to our country makes good sense.
What I would like to do is shine a light on the fact that those screaming about "hatred" have done nothing but stoke the fires they want us to believe they are against.
First, while the only thing the media seem interested in is the "manifesto" of the El Paso killer, there has been little scrutiny or notice of the progressive political leanings of the Dayton killer. Apparently, to progressives, it is okay to hate as long as you hate the right people.
How peaceful are the progressives?
- I have to start with Reza Azlan. Very little commentary is needed on these two tweets (I hate that word, too):
You are “the depraved evil” we need to eradicate. https://t.co/zPJhVS1hkn — Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) August 4, 2019and
Hmmmmmmmmm - calling for the eradication of a large swath of the popuoation based on his calculation that they are racists. Classy and peaceful.After today there is no longer any room for nuance. The President is a white nationalist terror leader. His supporters – ALL OF THEM – are by definition white nationalist terror supporters. The MAGA hat is a KKK hood. And this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) August 4, 2019
- What does Bozo O'Rourke think the effect of his words, such as "Jesus Christ, of course he's a racist" might be? Yea, next to Azlan these are amateurish grade-school taunts. But I work in the mental health field and I know there are plenty of unwell people out there who hear a phrase Bozo's or Azlan's and consider it a justification, in invitation to do violence. It only gets worse when they add that "and all his supporters are "racists" too."
- This same logic follows from statements from others, for instance AOC, when referring to CBP and ICE officers as "nazis" and lawful holding centers as "Concentration camps". Has the same MSM called out her for rhetoric that most certainly lead to the recent attempts to shoot up a center by an AntiFA militant? That was not hate speech?
Again - their message is clear: It is okay to hate as long as you hate the right person/people. Some protected classes of people are not to be disrespected.
While it's clear that rhetoric like the above might motivate the militant wing of the progressive movement, such as AntiFA what is not as easily recognized is how hate speech from the left might also motivate action by mentally unhealthy conservatives.
The left has spent generations now, telling us that acting out and criminal behavior within certain segments of our population are a function of having been oppressed and downtrodden. They have bent over backward to excuse such behavior. Yet they cannot see how being called a nazi, a white nationalist, a racist and a long list of others when one is none-of-the-above might be the new form of institutional hatred and lead to violent action. When you keep telling the "bad" kid he is bad and will never be any better, sometimes he comes to agree and decides that he will be the "baddest bad kid" he can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)