“Shelby Chestnut, a media spokesperson at the Anti-Violence Project, which targets LGBT community members, argues that guns are tools of hate crimes, not a way to prevent them. Citing the case of Cece McDonald [above], a transgender woman who was sent to jail after defending herself against a homophobic attack, Chestnut noted that carrying a gun can often subject LGBT people to even greater violence. ‘We need to look at the systemic inequalities that are causing people to be victims of violence,’ she said. ‘The solution to that is definitely not creating violence to end violence.'” – MEET THE GAY LIBERTARIAN GUN NUTS [via vice.com]
“The solution to that is definitely not creating violence to end violence.”
And that’s why we don’t allow cops to carry guns, right?
How did we win WWI and WWII? That would be with violence.
If these people were in charge…
… we would be dead or speaking German.
Or more likely Russian.
Or Japanese.
“Don’t resist. You’ll just make things harder on yourself.”
Spoken by every maniac, rapist, thief, cop and government employee who would rather you just not resist.
I was actually told the very same thing by a county tax commissioner once.
You repeated yourself a couple times.
Must not have used it right!
Well we’ve already observed that no black guy with an Uzi has ever been lynched. I suppose that would work for this “woman” or whatever. Whatever. FWIW there’s an open carry walk on the Gateway Mall at 1:00 today. Organizers are saying it is not a militia walk…Wear appropriate attire or be shunned and ridiculed. First time I’ve heard local media mention our “newfound” freedom. Just heard it on channel 2.
As a LGBT individual, and a Military veteran I have one response: F@&$! That!
+1 ’nuff said!
What they are really mad about is that she didn’t submit to the assault so that incident could more easily be used for their propaganda. As it is they have to very carefully highlight the misfortune of her incarceration while avoiding any questions about how things may have been worse without her firearm. A dead martyr is a good martyr.
I like how the article lists 3 or 4 instances of gays using guns to defend themselves and then the one counter argument is a woman starting a fight outside a bar and then killing someone with a pair of scissors. Although to be fair I can’t figure out why she was convicted since she was struck first with a glass bottle.
That’s a dude.
If it dresses like a she and acts like a she and really wants to be a she that bad I am not going to split hairs.
Split hairs? I’m not either. You are either a man or a woman regardless of clothing, wishing, or surgery. I will not call a he a she.
I will not allow political correctness to force me to ignore facts.
I will not allow Liberals to say a mandated purchase of health insurance is not a tax, then say it is, then say it is a fine, then it is not a penalty.
I will not allow Liberals to define marriage.
I will not allow Liberals to tell me that the second amendment only refers to “guns of that era”.
I mention all this because the whole LGBT thing is a Liberal movement to stifle independent thought.
I won’t have any of it. That doesn’t make me a bigot. It makes me free.
(THAT escalated quickly)
Got it. Ol’ Cece up there is just a pawn in an elaborate plot to destroy our way of life. Good thing you’re here to remind everyone that she is a he or they would have gotten away with it…
I’m going to go to the gun show now.
I don’t give a crap about the dude in a dress. My concern is how you and Liberals refer to that dude and how collectivists want me to fall for the same bullshit.
It doesn’t creep you out that the Progressives are trying to get inside your brain and make you believe things that are completely contrary to the truth?
It creeps me out like anything.
It’s not hairs you need to split, it’s chromosomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system
Look at that picture again. You couldn’t find his dick on a map even though it is LITERALLY, on a map.
It wasn’t hair that that surgeon was splitting.
Just to clear it up: nobody believes Cece is a real woman, especially not Cece herself. No one is trying to trick you into thinking that. She wants to be refferred to as she. You can either oblige and make someone a tiny bit happier or you can be petty and pedantic and piss someone else off with absolutely no benefit to anyone in order to be ‘right’. Your choice.
Appeasing peoples’ delusions doesn’t help them. Most in the psychiatric community are opposed to the practice of sex change operations.
Who cares? It does not affect me in any way. Therefore, it is none of my business. And you can refer to the person as “it” for all I care.
LarryinTX , thank you.
You seem awfully ate up over this. How about we just let people be? If Cece wants to be a woman, who are you to tell her no? She has every right to be whoever the hell she wants. That’s the very essence of freedom.
You want your freedoms, but deny this person the right to self identify? What do you care if Cece calls herself a he, or a she, or an it, or whatever? Doesn’t it p!$$ you off when people refer to you as a “gun nut” when that’s not how you would self identify? If she’s not hurting you, and she’s not, shut up.
Why would you want me to shut up? Now that is what pisses me off more than being called a gun nut. That, and being told to refer to a man as a woman. I can call myself Superman or a Golden Eagle but that don’t mean I can fly.
I want you to shut up for the same reason I want people like Ann Coulter to shut up. Because even though we share an opinion on one subject, (guns, in this instance) your ridiculous, bigoted bleating on another subject makes you, and by association ME, look like ignorant meatballs whose opinions on things we actually know about can be ignored.
I HOPE you and I agree that Ms. Cece should have the right to defend herself, however she self identifies. Beyond that, keep your ignorant opinions to yourself and stop painting the people on this website as homophobic jackoffs.
How does recognizing that a man is just a man in a dress make me a homophobe?
And Ann Coulter is brilliant! She has many gay friends by the way as do I.
Not that Michael needs my words towards his defense but with regards to this person self identifying Michael did not attempt to deny anything other than being personally required to refer to a man as a woman. Where is the attempt to deny this persons rights?
This person can call themselves something which they are not. No right denied.
Some can choose to make them happy and refer to them as requested. No right denied.
Others may prefer to go with facts and call a male a male. No right denied.
This is a popular tactic of gun-grabbers. Providing them with a fact that they don’t want to hear equates to some kind of rights violation and telling that person to shut up is the fix. You can tell people with differing views to shut up if you want but I don’t think it effectively promotes the pro-rights message you are going for.
Michael in GA, you not being able to accept the fact that a person’s gender is defined by more than their apparent plumbing is a proof of either ignorance or denial. You might dislike the facts but truth is that once you get past medieval (and older) simplification and once you accept modern medicine you have to admit that gender is not binary. E.g., some people are born with both male and female chromozomes and ambiguous genitalia. And what about a person with female phenotype – down to having breasts, vagina and uterus – but with typically male XY chromosomes and testes in place of ovaries because the reason for such a body is a complete androgen insensitivity syndrome? What about a person with female genes – no Y chromosome – but with a functional penis capable of penetrative intercourse thanks to congenital adrenal hyperplasia? And we’re talking about the *body* here, now imagine how much messier the whole thing gets once you analyse the brain too.
Are you still really confident you can sensibly decide a person’s gender based on their ability to piss their name into snow?
No, my problem is, I don’t try to lump everyone into a group. Like Chris above that said he was part of the GLBT group, which one is he…or she? I look at a man with long hair and women’s clothes and I see a man with long hair wearing women’s clothes. If I see a true hermaphrodite, very rare, then that is what they are, and I don’t know how to classify someone like that. I don’t know why I even have to. My original comment was regarding the man in the picture that everyone was calling a woman. I’m not hating anyone. I’m not telling anyone to be “normal”. All I am saying is, don’t force me to refer to an abnormal person as normal. Don’t force me to refer to illegal aliens as undocumented Americans. Don’t expect me to believe that Elizabeth Warren is Cherokee, and why should it matter? Are you an American citizen with inalienable rights? I will fight to protect all of our rights. But no one has the right to be accepted by every other person. That is an unattainable goal anyway. There are people that will never accept me for carrying a gun. So what? If I shave my eyebrows and draw them back on with a red Sharpie, that is my right, but if people call me an idiot for doing that then why should I get mad?
Michael in GA: I am not trying to force you into anything. I was just offering some food for though and right now I am not sure you’ve tried to digest it. So I will sort of repeat myself. Gender is neither binary nor trinary. True hermafrodites are far from being the only intersexed humans. So how would *you* call the people from my post above? Say the last example, somebody with female XX chromosomes but possesing a functional penis?
And saying you wouldn’t know how to address somebody is a cop-out. They *have* to use either the male or female tag, as I don’t suppose you’re expecting them to consider themselves an it.
Sure, some people do not look like your stereotypical male/female. But then again I don’t consider a woman who weighs 300 lbs to be an embodiment of feminity either, and (unlike intersexed/TG/CD people) most of the obese are responsible for such a weight themselves, and a passable trans-person is visually more appealing than a walking mountain of fat, yet I wouldn’t dream of denying such a full-bodied woman her status of female. Are we supposed to be so shallow we would deny someone their own gender based on how they *look*?
As for me being an American citizen with inalienable rights, well, I am not one and I don’t have those. And for your information, I am an agnostic so I’m not even sure any such rights exist. The universe on the whole seems to lack such concepts in its laws. But I do live in a shall-issue country and I am a member of our local NRA-equivalent, so thanks for your concern but you don’t have to fear for my gun rights. I’ve carried a rifle into a school some two weeks ago and it was all perfectly legal here.
“No, my problem is, I don’t try to lump everyone into a group. Like Chris above that said he was part of the GLBT group, which one is he…or she? I look at a man with long hair and women’s clothes and I see a man with long hair wearing women’s clothes. If I see a true hermaphrodite, very rare, then that is what they are, and I don’t know how to classify someone like that.”
You don’t know how to classify… but yet you don’t try to lump everyone in a group. And here you are trying to classifying this individual… and failing miserably. Your classification for anybody other than you is irrelevant
Now, as a Thought experiment: Pretend you hate being called Mikey.
Pretend we’re introduced, I call you Mikey – You say I dislike that, “please call me Michael. ” and I refuse, because I think you look more like a Mikey than a Michael.
That is what you are doing here. You have a persons preferred form of address – And you reject it, because it doesn’t fit YOUR classification. When to accept and use their form address both costs you nothing – AND helps the other person gain acceptance.
Now as far as anything else goes, Her genitals are irrelevant. Unless you and she want to get together in a consensual relationship to rub genitals.
I’m reasonably certain she doesn’t want to with you… Therefore man/woman – Doesn’t matter in the slightest to you. So address her as she would prefer to be. It’s the polite thing to do.
McDonald was sent to jail after lying about her actions. In court. Under oath.
Don’t pull the innocent angelic child angle anymore, ever.
That information wasn’t in the article or Wikipedia. Do you have a link?
I haven’t found anything indicating this defendant lied under oath, in court or elsewhere. I’m not saying that didn’t happen, just that I haven’t found anything authoritative to that effect.
What I have found in several sources, is that ultimately this defendant plead guilty to second degree murder, and spent much of the prison sentence receiving hormone treatments and watching “Sex and the City” marathons at taxpayer expense.
pled
That’s odd. Normally, I prefer “pleaded” as the past participle of the verb “to plead”, if only to avoid any confusion, but this time I actually chose “pled”, instead. My phone replaced “pled” with “plead” through auto correct.
Even now, typing this post on my laptop, “pled” comes up in the comment box red-underlined to indicate a misspelling; but there’s no auto correct feature changing it, as on the phone. I wouldn’t have expected “pled” to be such an obscure alternative that the software would object to it. Oh well.
Update 12:06 P.M.
I had previously read a wikipedia article that mentioned someone in some case lying under oath. In the pre-coffee hours of the morning, I made an erroneous mental leap. I was wrong.
“Violence, naked force has solved more issue in history than any other factor. Those that forget that pay with their freedom and their lives” “StarshipTroopers” Paraphrasing RAH.
Heinlein , the master.
That man is an endless fountain of good quotes. My all time favorite book is probably The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
That, as well as “Stranger in a Strange Land”.
He was featured in a program about legendary scifi writers (history channel iirc) that first mentioned starship troopers as being controversial for it’s supposedly fascist content then the surprise of Stranger being somehow ideologically opposed to his other works. I never found SST to be fascist at all nor Stranger to be opposed to the principals proposed in that book.
Exactly Drew; if you read RAH’s work, it is consistent in it’s support of responsibility, self- sacrifice and putting your life on the line for your principles, your freedom, your friends and loved ones and your society, without giving up your individuality.
This news piece has nothing at all to do with guns. So why is the title on thetruthaboutguns so misleading? Just to get us all to read it, I suppose. And yes, it is a travesty of justice that “she” was charged at all much less accepted the plea bargain and will go to prison. She has no right to defend herself? WTF !
Odd. I read several points about gun rights.
Yep.
I counted 23 references to “guns” in the article.
Seems like Neil didn’t read all of the words in the article.
I’m a gay man who has carried concealed for over a decade. I have not been a victim of violence.
“guns are tools of hate crimes, not a way to prevent them” is nothing other than an unsubstantiated meme which is a variation on the unsubstantiated them regarding your gun being taken from you and used against you.
I think it is ironic that many who are not reflexively anti-gay are still prejudiced in that they believe that all gays are politically liberal. They assume that if one is gay we must also be liberal. If not, then we are terribly confused.
And, of course, being libertarian (small “L”) just confuses most people who have learned to toe a party line. To be libertarian, one actually has to research and think for themselves. The horror!!!!
Honestly, I don’t give a whit about anti hate crime legislation. If I’m being assaulted, independent of the reason, I just want to be able to defend myself. The assailant clearly doesn’t care about the legal consequences. In the midst of the assault, they only respond to force. My goal is to optimize my force.
So to those that feel that as a gay person who must be liberal and disarmed – stop being so prejudiced!
I was given quite a tongue lashing from a gay man after I made a comment about air pollution. This guy was more Conservative than me and openly gay. He tore me a new asshole when I exposed my environmentalist side. To be clear, I was not advocating government intervention to impose job killing penalties on businesses. I was suggesting saving clean air and water should be a personal moral decision.
About the only thing more refreshing than encountering a Conservative homosexual is a Conservative black person. They do exist but not enough to make a difference. It’s not about black/white, gay/straight, man/woman, rich/poor. It is all about collectivist/individual. That is where the line is drawn. The real war is a war on the individual. There is a war on freedom.
I was given quite a tongue lashing from a gay man
You might wish to rephrase that. Not that there’s anything wrong with it.
He tore me a new asshole…
Phrasing, BOOM!
Are we not doing phrasing anymore?
What I find ironic is that a demographic that has been subjected to a disproportionate amount of hate crimes would be against self-defense.
I’m a heterosexual, white, upper-middle class, anglo-saxon male and there’s no way I’d advocate taking away or even reducing my rights of self-defense. If I were a member of a demographic that was frequently a target of hate crimes, I can’t even conceive of how I’d advocate giving up my rights of self-defense. I just can’t wrap my head around that idea.
It’s easy, you just have to believe that your superiors can better protect you than you can. And that even if you are assaulted the overall benifit to “your people” out weighs the cost to you. I remember a comment from a lesbian that she kept a gun for protection, both for her and her long time partner. She knew her mere existence made her a target in several ways. But if told she would absolutely hand that gun over to her government. That’s it though, no talk of promises of safety security or any deterrent from assaulting her or her partner. Certainly she must know that any threat out there now must still be there after the confiscation.
It’s actually pretty funny, I am a Pre-OP TS (I wrote an article on here), but I went to a Anti 594 rally in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. And one of the authors of 594 was there, I think he was gay, but don’t hold me to that, but literally I don’t think he could believe that I was supporting 591.
I fail to see why an individual cannot live by their own decisions. Someone fvkstain will always try to tell you how to live YOUR life. Some of them get elected and meddle in your life on a grander scale. Pisses me off to no end.
Reality: Harshing the mellow progressive narrative since, well, forever.
Too often in these articles it turns into liberal vs. Conservative. IMO the problem with the liberals is the same problem with conservatives: Lazy thought process. They just decide to be one of the above and don’t/won’t do the hard work it takes to examine all the facts for themselves. Liberal opiners/conservatives are all pretty well worthless to me.
Sounds fairly Conservative to me.
It is collective thought vs. individual thought no matter what side of the isle you support politically. In that sense, I agree with you.
Yes, at least it is what conservatism used to mean. As opposed to right wing. Not the same thing. IMO the GOP ruined the concept of conservatism although there used to be conservative democrats too. Ah, the good old days when politics were dominated by sensible folks. Er, more sensible anyway.
I vote Republican because, although very flawed, it is salvageable. Free thinking people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, Allen West, Jason Chaffets, Trey Goudy, Mia Love, and more, give me hope for this Republic. The Democrat party is so far, if not Socialist, Collectivist in its ideology that no policy that will ever be passed will favor individual freedom. A freedom loving Liberal is what we call Libertarian. Libertarians can not win a National Primary. The best thing for the Country is for all freedom loving people to strengthen the Republican party, putting social issues aside, and focus on what the role of the Federal government should be and work to downsize it to that task limited by the Constitution.
1) National security: Strong military (strongest in the world), secure boarders (allow legal immigration, stop illegals, no amnesty), Fight our enemies that threaten our and our allies’ security.
2) Get out of the way of the free market. (too much to list on that).
3) Protect individual rights. (enough said)
We no longer have a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our Government is over the people, by the bureaucrats, for the Government. Only Conservatism can fix that and Conservatism must rule one or both parties. My bet is on the Republicans.
There is a lot to like there but a few exceptions. I don’t think that any market is free- far from it. Remove govt and you get monopolies and other manipulations, history proves it. Finding the correct level of govt involvment is critical but also problematic and therefore contentious. It is something no human mind can fully comprehend but that doesn’t stop folks on both sides from pretending that they alone know. No compromise means no action yet the nature of the beast forces action. We will deal one way or another.
Governments protect monopolies.
“The best thing for the Country is for all freedom loving people to strengthen the Republican party, putting social issues aside, and focus on what the role of the Federal government should be and work to downsize it to that task limited by the Constitution.”
Absolutely. Well said.
Well THAT escalated quickly.
Just the way politico nerds have fun.
What do you expect some one who has surrendered their right to self defense to say?
DUDE…if someone doesn’t want to be armed I don’t care. If the happy or mutilated believe the anti-gun clap trap whatever. I still support their right to have guns.
I believe I made a more than eloquent answer to Ms. Chestnut in the comments of the article, but I will address a few additional points here.
CeCe McDonald’s sexual identity was a motivating factor in this case. Clearly, from the tenor of some of the comments here, sexual identity is a deeply threatening personal issue. Those who insist on clinging to chromosomes and 4 ounce pieces of meat, claiming that such can define who and what a person is are just as incorrect as those who claim the sun revolves around the Earth, and the stars are pinholes in the bowl of the sky. Those are things we believed, back when we didn’t know any better. Chromosomes and gobbets of flesh do indeed present a visible confirmation of the body’s sex, but we now know that they do NOT dictate what is in the mind or, as some feel, the soul.
The mother’s hormonal balance during gestation is of critical importance. Without strong “washes” of testosterone, the growing child will develop mental patterning that is quite at odds with the physical development of the body. That testosterone can be interfered with by a whole host of factors, some from the mother’s body naturally, some due to chemicals and drugs administered to her. The most pronounced of these effects is when there is enough testosterone at the correct time to differentiate the cells of the body to an XY pattern, but not enough, or at the incorrect time, to pattern the brain to an XY structure. The result is an XX-patterned brain in an XY body. This is possible because ALL fetuses start as female. It is the application of testosterone to the growing child at precise times that triggers the differentiation.
Many factors can interfere with this process. Drugs have been given to pregnant women to help prevent miscarriage, and to supposedly help with other issues. Most are strongly estrogenic. This can “override” the testosterone that patterns the brain, resulting in an XX-patterned brain. This shows up later when the personality uses those pathways and finds itself at odds with the gross physical structure of the rest of the body.
Those who say “just look at the chromosomes” are doing the equivalent of 1950’s style atomic theory. Back then, we only knew about atoms. We didn’t know anything about subatomic particles, so those references were as good as we could do at the time. But we learned more about atomic structure over the 60-odd years since then, and now we know that to just say “what atoms make it up” is only a small part of an object’s structure, a very large, gross level of understanding. Talking about shared electron bonds, isotopes, muons and baryons and other subatomic things we only recently have discovered is a far more precise method of defining a substance.
The same is true about the physiology of identity. Just looking at macro-scale physical traits such as the presence of certain organs or their absence is the most unsubtle, macro-size level. There have been males, fertile males, with XX chromosomes. It is rare, but it can happen. (I know such a person. She had gone through life as a male until a random check in the military showed XX chromosomes. This grounded her from combat missions because at that time, females were not permitted in front-line combat.) So chromosomes aren’t even an ultimate arbiter. Too many things can go wrong with them, resulting in everything from utterly atypical expressions of sexuality to genetic chimaeras, with different numbers of chromosomes entirely.
So we look deeper, and find that prenatal hormones have a great effect upon the patterns in the brain, and this can define how a person thinks, feels, and reacts — and this pattern is utterly independent from the differentiation of sexual organs, or even chromosomes within the cells. That’s why simply saying “that’s a dude, I don’t care what he did to himself” is not a valid means of identifying a given individual. Right now, all we can go by is what the person reports that they are experiencing to discover that deep level of patterning. It is NOT a “whim” or a “lifestyle choice”. It is who they are at a level they cannot personally control. Is it not a case of “to thine own self be true”? The quote isn’t “to thine own flesh be true”, it is the self that matters. Flesh is as grass. It is the beast part of us, and we hold dominion over the beasts. Our minds and our souls are the important part.
CeCe ran into someone who could not accept that as an individual identification. He offered her violence. NOW we run into exactly what Massad Ayoob called “the dangerous myth of the hierarchy of lethality”. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/15/massad-ayoob-the-dangerous-myth-of-hierarchy-of-lethality/)
The man with his broken glass was considered less lethal than CeCe’s scissors, thus it was claimed that CeCe was unjustified in using deadly force. This did not take into account differences in size and upper body strength, as well as the effects of methamphetamine upon her attacker. One can be a deadly opponent even if they do not have a weapon as a force multiplier. I maintain that CeCe reasonably perceived her opponent as a deadly threat and defended herself. The prosecution differed from that opinion, and also offered the “duty to retreat” portion of the law in place at the time to claim CeCe should have disengaged and left — ignoring that she did just that, and was apprehended by her attacker.
As I intimated to Ms. Chestnut in my comment on the original VICE article (for which I was interviewed, I might add) — self-defense is not violence. When done properly, with respect for the rights of your own attacker and conscious adherence to the law, it is not a violation of anything, even if deadly force is required. It is a precise meeting of violence with anti-violence, neutralizing both and leaving peace in its wake.
As First Speaker for the Pink Pistols, it behooves me to understand these issues, and how they interact with the complex mindset of my own GLBT community.
Ms Patton, thank you. A thoughtful response. Too bad the VICE reporter did not catch the summary.
Self defense is not violence.
The AVP people in New York are to be commended for their long work, but to over simplify an encounter and blame it on the tool undermines their credibilty. One can simply see the most recent item on their page, is about a knife attack.
http://www.avp.org/resources/avp-resources/345-ncavp-has-learned-of-the-intimate-partner-violence-homicide-of-tawnee-maria-baird-in-ogden-utah-
Common-sense is gender nuetral. Trying to persuade LGBT victims to use the tactics advocated by the University of Colorado, in their much ridiculed tip sheet, here:
http://www.avp.org/resources/avp-resources/345-ncavp-has-learned-of-the-intimate-partner-violence-homicide-of-tawnee-maria-baird-in-ogden-utah-
is just as foolish. Political correctness is a thought crime against commn-sense, especially when it puts victims at even greater risk. This kind of spin simply undermines AVPs credibility. Rape is not about sex. It is about power.
Asking women, or other genders to defend themselves against an attack by giving up power, and making themselves more debased, is beyong dumb. It starts to make an outside observor wondef if AVP is more about using the name of the organization in some way to collaborate on other political goals, at the expense of its constituents.
Keep up the good work and your steadfast strength in the face of those who would try to ‘Uncle Tom’ you.
Just as in the straight community there are many in the LGBT comunity who see thru the foolishness of much of the Progressive Narrative, including the Stalinist mindset and demand that all minority groups stay on the plantation, for some hypothetical benefit.
Its clearly NOT working, politically, and the sooner LGBTs can come “out of thr closet” on their personal choices for self defense, including guns, the safer all will be. Freedom and the right to defend ones self is not violence. It is a natural, god-given right.
Well defense is violence, and guns are made to kill. No need to shrink from the truth. General knowledge of those two facts is what makes it possible for most defensive firearm uses to be resolved without gunfire. On a greater scale it’s what makes politics and diplomacy possible. Real consequences make people sit down to talk.
I am a poached egg.
The real story here isn’t whether guns cause violence (they don’t), nor whether guns repel violence (they do). The real story is whether duty to retreat laws turn victims into criminals.
This individual did not seek, provoke or consent to any violent encounter with the attackers. This individual even attempted to flee following the initial attack. When the male of the attacking couple pursued this fleeing individual, following the female of the couple’s first round attack and retirement from the fight, this individual stopped, turned, produced a makeshift weapon, and stood their ground. From this stance, the individual delivered the death blow to the pursuing attacker. Uh oh.
Minnesota has no stand your ground law. Instead, they have a duty to retreat law. This individual’s decision to stand their ground and strike a mortal blow to a pursuing attacker constituted a major crime in open, progressive Minnesota. Just something to think about when people brag about relative freedoms by state, particularly open carry. Some laws are nice to have, but others are must have.
“Duty to retreat” has to be the stupidest application of legislative misconduct we have ever had. I thought it was gone. Does it still exist anywhere?
Jonathan claims MN has it now.
A bill was introduced in Oregon to make it that way:
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/dont-vote-dont-matter
The “duty to retreat” comes from the “to the wall” concept of the Founders’ era. That principle required an attacked person to retreat “to the wall”, which meant as far as possible. If the attacker was faster and stronger, making retreat impossible, then if the victim turned and fought back, he’d done his duty to go “to the wall”.
Applying that to this case, once the first attempt to flee failed, the duty to retreat was satisfied, and whatever level of force the victim judged necessary was authorized. The modern “duty to retreat” is a perversion of the old principle, leading as it did here to punishing the law-upholding.
“guns are tools of hate crimes,”
So… the transgender person (male to female) who was found strangled/beaten to death behind a dumpster in LA recently and the kid who was dragged to death behind a pick up some years back were killed by guns?
I didn’t know guns could choke or drive trucks…
Gary the glock can.
Yeah, like bleaded.
“Chestnut noted that carrying a gun can often subject LGBT people
to even greater BULLYING by the anti-civil rights extremists crowd,
generally known as liberals.”
This seems far more akin to reality than Chestnuts’ original assertion.
It takes a special kind of stupid to antagonize someone who is geared up specifically to be able to kill you without breaking a sweat. But it happens. Especially among radical bigots. But you don’t submit to violent assault because of the long shot psychopath that doesn’t turn tail at the sight of your muzzle.
For the record, one cannot change one’s sex. You sex is determined by one’s chromosomal makeup determined at fertilization.
And, just what happened to your rainbow unity program? I thought that freedom loving homosexuals and non-whites were supposed to rally to the flag of freedom? I guess its not working out so well.
Homosexuals hate freedom. They want to impose their homosexuality on others, not just be happy to be free. And they support all the policies of the radical left, including taking your guns away, especially if you are white.
Oh, look. It’s the racist ahole again. I have a Mexican lesbian gun-loving friend who begs to differ. But go on and stay in your little racist bubble.
Study up guy, gender is not determined at fertilization. It is in fact determined well into gestation and any given fetus may or may not make the change to male. Oh that’s another thing you won’t like to hear. We are all females at conception, every last one of us. Hence male nipples and milk ducts and the fact that male genitalia are modified female genitalia. There are also many more variants than male or female. Those chromosomes you mentioned may be female in a person with a penis. Conversely a genetically identified male can have partial or full female organs along with any given physical expression being paired with a mind that is physically male or female. Your lack of knowledge exposes your true standing as a simple bigot aiming to oppress freedom. Should you decide to slip your leash and act out your beliefs I hope your would be victim is tooled up to put you down.
Stormfront just has to put in an appereance.
Life is really pretty simple. A gun is one of the best ways to protect yourself from a predator. I personally don’t listen to transgender people because they do not acknowledge reality.
Comments are closed.