Thursday, November 18, 2021

Rittenhouse's Gun Saved Lives in Kenosha

NY Times columnist Farhad Manjoo writes:
Binger’s argument had a power beyond this case.

That’s because it cleverly unraveled some of the foundational tenets of gun advocacy: That guns are effective and necessary weapons of self-defense. That without them, lawlessness and tyranny would prevail. And that in the right hands — in the hands of the “good guys” — guns promote public safety rather than destroy it.

In the Rittenhouse case, none of that was true. At every turn that night, Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle made things worse, ratcheting up danger rather than quelling it. The gun transformed situations that might have ended in black eyes and broken bones into ones that ended with corpses in the street. And Rittenhouse’s gun was not just a danger to rival protesters. According to his own defense, the gun posed a grave threat to Rittenhouse himself — he said he feared being overpowered and then shot with his own weapon.

This is the dumbest commentary I have seen on the case.

Black eyes? The rioters were burning buildingss down. They destroyed 100 cars. This was destruction that called for lethal force.

Rittenhouse's gun was a threat to the criminal rioters who were trying to take his gun away. Yes, his gun was promoting public safety.

Why would anyone chase a kid with a loaded AR-15? Think about that.

Now we learn that the Jump Kick Man has been identified as Maurice Freeland, a 40-year-old Black man with a criminal record. So maybe there is a racial angle to the case after all.

Meanwhile, the VP is getting harder to defend. Politico reports:

Psaki jumped to Harris’ defense on Twitter on Sunday, posting that the vice president is a “vital partner” to President Joe Biden, who has taken on “important challenges facing the country,” from voting rights to the crisis at the border.

“What I would note, though, and one of the things I really admire about the vice president: She is the first African American woman, woman of color, Indian American woman to serve in this job. Woman. I mean, so many firsts, right? It’s a lot to have on your shoulders,” Psaki said on Wednesday. “She is somebody who, at a much higher level than the rest of us, but who wants to be seen as the talented, experienced, you know, expert, substantive policy person, partner to the president, that she is. But I do think there have been some attacks that are beyond because of her identity.”

Andrew Anglin responds:
Who are these people who say negative things about people just because they don’t like their “identity”?

Well, that doesn’t exist. There are no such people. This is a stupid boogieman designed to appeal to morons who feel good about believing stupid lies designed to be emotionally charged.

They say I’m the number one racist hater, and I’ve never even once judged an individual person on their race or sex, ever. You see that I respect and listen to Glenn Greenwald, a faggot kike.

If I am a “racist,” it is because I acknowledge that generally, black people are stupid and Jews are subversive and satanic monsters. But if there is an individual of any race, or even if there is an individual woman, the only thing I’m ever going to judge is the individual.

I do not believe that anyone on the planet says bad things about Kamala Harris because she’s a woman and allegedly black. I don’t really even believe that anyone believes that happened, save for the dumb morons who believe everything because they worship authority (and are incapable of distinguishing between truth and “what the authorities said”).

People dislike Kamala Harris because she’s gross and evil. She got her job by sucking dick. She doesn’t believe in anything and will say anything. She was the number one person putting black people in prison; now she’s trying to abolish the cops.

Have you seen this space video?

I think he is correct about why Harris is disliked. She wants to be seen as a substantive official, but she cannot keep up with a senile and stupid President.


Gabe Ruth said...

I hadn't followed Anglin until recently, but he's absolutely hilarious and a remarkably reasonable, measured commenter on current events.

It's such a weird situation when you see the first reasonable take on some current event, and it's peppered with taboos and ZOG no-no words.

Roger said...

I agree about Anglin. He is hilarious, and posts a lot of good commentary, even if it is peppered with taboos. He would be a lot more popular, if he were not banned so many places.

I hesitate to even quote him, as I don't want to get banned.