Back in 2015, a 60-year old Black man was sitting in his living room watching TV in St. Louis when he heard noises out in his back yard. Grabbing his gun, he went out on the back porch and saw someone jump out of his car and evidently start to run towards him. The man raised the gun, pulled the trigger and a 13-year old kid was dead.
The would-be teenage car burglar was actually trying to run around the car so that he could jump the back fence and retreat. But under Missouri’s Stand Your Ground (SYG) and Castle Doctrine (CD) laws, the shooter who had committed a felony years ago, was found guilty only of possessing an illegal gun.
Missouri has some of the most expansive SYG and CD laws of any of the 50 states. Basically, what their laws say is that if someone comes on your property and after being warned to retreat doesn’t immediately back away, you can presume you are facing a serious threat, pull out the old shootin’ iron and bang away.
You may recall that a year ago June, a man and his wife, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, stood on the front steps of their home in St. Louis and waved guns at a group of BLM protestors who were marching in the street. The McCloskeys both happen to be attorneys, so you would assume that they would defend their behavior by claiming their innocence under the SYG and CG laws. In fact, they claimed that they were protecting their home and themselves from a ‘mob’ that was about to storm their property and do them in.
They were indicted for unlawful use of weapons an immediately became the poster children of the Trump campaign’s stupid attempt to make the 2nd Amendment a centerpiece of his failing re-election campaign, up to and including an appearance at the GOP convention when Trump was nominated for a second term.
On Thursday, these two schmucks pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor which means they won’t do any jail time and can keep their licenses to practice law. Mark McCloskey is now running for Senate and here’s what his website says: ‘On June 28, 2020, and then again on July 3, 2020, Mark McCloskey and hie wife Patty, held off a violent mob through the exercise of their 2nd Amendment rights.”
As of today, contributions to the McCloskey campaign listed by the Federal Election Commission are – ready? – zero. Or as Grandpa would say – ‘gurnisht.’ Or better yet – ‘gurnisht helfen,’ which means it’s not going to work at all.
I think the Prosecutor in this case, Richard Callahan, got it right when he said, “We still have the Second Amendment rights. It’s just that the Second Amendment does not permit unreasonable conduct.”
On the other hand, when the President of the United States defends this kind of behavior, when he defends protestors who march up the steps of a State Capitol Building with their AR-15’s, when he says that a bunch of American Nazis marching around with their guns includes some ‘good people,’ he’s not just defending the 2nd Amendment.
He’s just pandering to the lowest, common mentality of all – the mentality which actually believes that walking around in a public space with an assault rifle is t he best way to protect yourself from the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal state.
Of course, somehow, don’t ask me how, the ‘tyranny’ of the national state only seems to appear when Democrats are in control or look like they may end up in control. When a Republican like Donald Trump or Mark McCloskey gets into office there’s nothing to worry about because they respect our 2nd-Amendment ‘rights.’
If we learned anything from the 2020 election, it’s that at least 81 million voting Americans don’t buy into such nonsense and are willing to help decide the country’s political stance on more realistic and honest terms.
I suspect this is also true of most voters who vote the Republican ticket whether they like the names on the GOP line or not.
The truth is that maybe, just maybe, all this nonsense about 2nd-Amdnement ‘rights’ may be ending up where it belongs.
Jun 18, 2021 @ 11:04:11
RIGHTS, not ‘rights.’ If you don’t like the idea of gun rights, (and you very obviously don’t) try moving to Europe.
Jun 19, 2021 @ 04:34:46
Just like a propagandist you build a case out of a few isolated events and pull on peoples heart strings as you produce absolutely unevidenced conclusions.
You have presented nothing but a pile of emotional isolated incidents as if this was a problem. I don’t suppose you see that as dishonest, deceitful and deliberately endangering public safety by advancing unevidenced oppressive conclusions.
It is disgusting that you try and remove people’s right to life and safety with the best means possible based on misinformation no better than lies. You are impervious to facts and possibly the most unsuitable, irresponsible person to advise anyone.
Your basic claim is that delusional mentally disturbed people driven by their own moral conscious and an ideology based on a proven lie know better than the founders who examined, debated and made sure the rights they affirmed were correct. What do you think the chance of you being correct are?
Now do you have a single piece of evidence to show this right had anything to do with anyone’s actions or that removing it will rehabilitate a single person or prevent a single event? Please do not be to grossly stupid as to suggest if they did not have a gun is pertinent. That is like saying if they did not have drugs, alcohol or any of the previous stupidity of mankind in attempting to control human behaviour by controlling an object. Which is what you are suggesting we repeat.
Now you can write an article on how removing the second amendment will prevent anything. Please avoid making false claims when you do. It’s not nice to lie to people or endanger their lives as you did with this article.
Jun 18, 2021 @ 12:35:14
Dumbasses like the McCloskeys make our lives hard.
The Founders thought certain things were natural rights and the Bill of Rights was added to proscribe the Federal government from infringing on them. That was 240 years ago. They also thought they could keep slaves. The 14A expanded these rights to cover actions of the states after some of our, well, Southern brethren thought otherwise. The Constitution is a document of its time and the Founders didn’t get it on gold tablets from Yaweh. We can change it and there are rules for doing so.
I’m all for a continued discussion of guns in society (not slavery in society) but the intent of the Founders was that the RKBA was an enumerated individual right in the context of universal militia service, as the Founders took a dim view of standing armies. But as Adam Winkler shows very nicely in his book Gunfight, it was never an absolute right to do whatever you please with whatever arms you so desire. I strongly recommend Gunfight. I have to buy Patrick Charles book too, “Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial Militias to Concealed Carry”.
Rights interpretations change with time. The First Amendment is far more expansive in legal doctrine than it was when John Adams could have you locked up for sedition under the Alien and Sedition Act, when you could be jailed merely for advocating draft resistance under the Espionage Act (WW I) or prior to the expansion of the 1A since Brandenburg v Ohio.
I find it amusing that those who shriek about the 2A being interpreted by gun rights proponents as possibly more expansive have no problem with the evolution of the 1A or for that matter, the right to an abortion, which is nowhere in the Constitution explicitly stated (and you can have a ball reading up on the history of the laws on abortion). Well, there are some modern day Progressives who want to criminalize words as assault and roll back free speech. I wonder if they will want to demand a background check and a speech license too.
I’ll retire to Bedlam.
Jun 18, 2021 @ 13:19:16
A 60-year old Black man. A 13-year old kid was dead.
The color of the shooter was emphasized with a capital “B” and yet there is no mention to the color of the 13-year old kid. Why is that?
What does the color of the shooter have to do with this story? Is that really relevant? Why is the color of the 13-year old not mentioned? Would it be relevant to state that the 13-year old boy had dropped out of school before the shooting? Would it be relevant that the 13-year old boy was bipolar? Would it be relevant that the 13-year old boy lost four fingers in a fireworks accident when he was 10?
That “60-year old Black man” was arrested but the U.S. prosecutors declined to press charges. It is interesting that the community supported the actions of this “60-year old Black man.” The mother of one of the other two boys that was with “the 13-year old kid” said that the “60-year old Black man” has a right to protect his stuff. She added “it could have cost all three of them their lives.”
P.S. How do you know the shooter was Black?
Jun 18, 2021 @ 21:52:02
I’ve been thinking today about why an emphasis would be given to a 60-year old man who was sitting in his living room watching TV when he heard noises out in his back yard and grabbing his gun was black? Maybe it’s due to racial anxiety. Don’t know. But, if it were a 60-year old White man, would that have been included in the story?