I did a couple of posts titled "Cringeworthy, But Understandable" about Patricia and Mark McCloskey, the couple who defended their home in a gated community against BLM trespassers with an AR-15. Almost two months later, Kyle Rittenhouse goes to Kenosha, WI in a completely misguided and illegal act to travel to a city that was suffering from "unrest" caused by "peaceful protests".
Straight off, what Rittenhouse did was not only illegal, but totally wrong.
On the other hand, I get why he would do it.
What a lot of people who want to "defund the police" don't get is that one of the purposes of a government is to provide order. It isn't stated in the US Constitution as openly as this is in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen Article 12 states:.
The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.
The US Constitution talks about the common defence, suppressing insurrection, and "domestic violence". But the constitution makes it clear that the militia is supposed to be the body that is the one suppressing insurrection (Article I section 8, clause 15), but that body is the one authorised by congress (Article I section 8, clause 15 and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 [1886]). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its existence.
The issue is who is going to keep the order if the police or militia/national guard aren't doing that job? Or at least it looks as if they aren't able to do that job.
What makes me different from a lot of other people on the left is that I believe in the military and the police. They are necessary evils. But they are evils which, as was stated in the literature surrounding the Second Amendment and US Constitution's drafting need to be "in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power".
This is why a strong government should have a police force which is accountable, but probably not to the court of public opinion.
I wonder if a lot of the cheering for the verdict in the Chauvin trial is like that from Greg Gutfeld:
The verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial is a great relief. I say that for cynical, sad, selfish reasons, because I knew that if it went the other way, my city would have been in flames. I know Chauvin is guilty, but I wonder if it's normal for a country to be so worried about unrest no matter what the outcome of a trial is. I know I was, because I've seen this before.
I wasn't sure about Greg Gutfeld, but I get him even if we are politically opposites. I could probably have a discussion with him without wanting to punch him out, but there would be a lot of shouting.
But, Greg says what's on his mind, and so do I, which is why I like him. I'm not going to wear kinte cloth, get on my knee, and virtue signal: I'm going to say what I think.
Or know.
And the BLM thing has sold way more guns and is far more counterproductive than productive. (Hey Greg, move to Philly where you can own an AR-15).
Patrisse Khan Cullors goes and buys a few couple of million dollar houses in white neighbourhoods. She's a Groucho Marxist if she is one at all. But it shows how hypocritical the BLM crowd happens to be. She's destroying the people she claims to want to believe in.
Sadly, we've normalized the threat of violence as a method to exact justice. After an event occurs, mayhem is now like a weather pattern -- "74% chance of arson, 90% chance of assault. Better board up those windows." Worse, our acceptance of anarchy has made it a wonderful opportunity for looters to step in and decry racial injustice by stealing a rack of expensive jackets.
So when something like the Chauvin story comes along, it's not just about justice. It's about how we process information, how we process our anger, and truth. If justice is predicated on a sense that mayhem can and will occur if it doesn't go a certain way, then we're all screwed for good.
Yep. What happened wasn't good, but I don't think we will have a serious discussion of this issue.
Unless more Kyle Rittenhouses come out of the woodwork to fill the vacuum. Is that what people want?
No comments:
Post a Comment