Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tim's avatar

No mention of self-defense against Antifa? And yet the picture is from Oregon? Really? This article feels biased to me. A simple google search shows that self defense may be a part of the reasoning as well. Just google "antifa attack right wing protesters". And you will find this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/ . The Washington Post is not a right-wing paper, but yet the headline says that antifa attacked "peaceful" right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley. I'm not claiming that intimidation may not be at play as well, but to write a whole article without mentioning Antifa or self-defense blows my mind.

Expand full comment
L.E.'s avatar

Carrying any kind of weapon in public requires a heightened degree of responsibility for the use of that weapon. Stand Your Ground laws and other types of "self-defense" laws wrongfully put the risk of use on the unarmed. We have given over to the State the responsibility to defend and protect us from our fellow citizens in public, retaining the right to defend our "castles." Ordinary citizens rarely carry weapons in populated public places for the sole purpose of defending oneself against a well-grounded belief in potential violence that the citizen rightfully believes the state's agents will be unable to prevent. The true purpose, as Neier articulates, is to intimidate those who would disagree with you. At best, open carry is a kind of preemptive self-defense to threaten others into silence and fear: don't f*{k with me, or I might just f*[k you up. I'm like a wild animal: volatile and unpredictable.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts