Riots of 2020 have given the Second Amendment a boost

Loading


by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

This year’s riots, sparked by the death of George Floyd and continued in the names of several others, have destroyed billions of dollars in property, cost numerous people their lives and businesses and jobs, and promoted what will probably be a decade or more of de-urbanization. But whatever else happens, they will have accomplished an important social change. Thanks to these riots, the case for the Second Amendment and the personal right to own weapons is growing steadily stronger, as is the legal case for private gun ownership.

That’s the thesis of a new paper by George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein, who also serves as the director of GMU’s Liberty and Law Center. “The Right to Armed Self Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication,” notes that the experience of this year’s riots undercuts the classic argument against an individual right to arms. While gun-control proponents have for decades argued that individual gun ownership is unnecessary in the modern era, where we have police forces to control crime, that hasn’t worked out very well this year for people in numerous urban centers around America.

Violence spreading in cities in 2020

Bernstein offers an extensive review of happenings in cities ranging from Seattle to Louisville, Portland to Chicago and New York and Raleigh, and many other cities. In case after case, police were told to stand down, in order to avoid provoking violence. And in each case, the result was more violence, more property destruction, and more damage to businesses and jobs, while political leaders stood by.

In Seattle, city officials not only allowed the creation of a police-free zone, the city actually helped the creators by supplying things like traffic barriers and portable toilets. How did that work out?

It was a debacle, despite Mayor Jenny Durkan’s initially comparing it to a “block party.” When it was finally ended, Bernstein notes, Durkan admitted that the rioting produced a 525% increase in “person-related crime,” including rape, robbery, assault and gang-related activity.

Likewise, in Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot and prosecutor Kim Foxx established an early policy of tolerating and even implicitly encouraging street violence through their lackadaisical response. Bernstein notes, “Even other Chicago officials who generally support criminal justice reform have criticized Foxx’s reluctance to pursue felony charges against those arrested for rioting or  looting.”

Meanwhile, “On a particularly violent weekend in early June, Lightfoot refused to deploy the National Guard beyond Chicago’s central business district, drawing condemnations from officials representing districts on the south and west side of the city, which were left unprotected during Chicago’s deadliest weekend in sixty years. Over that weekend, twenty-four people were killed and at least sixty-one injured by gun violence, and the city’s 911 dispatchers received 65,000 calls in a single   day — 50,000 more than normal. As chaos unfolded, one Democratic city councilwoman told the mayor on the phone, ‘My ward is a shit show …. [Rioters] are shooting at the police. I have never seen the likes of this. I’m scared.’”

When seconds count, police are minutes away 

Bernstein recounts, with heavy documentation, numerous cases along these lines from numerous cities around the nation. In addition, he notes other cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles, where police called in sick to protest the actions of city leaders, leaving citizens unprotected.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

And like just about all members of the Stupid Jackass Party(Liberal Democrat)Biden wants ti disarm us all to abide by the UN Small Arms Control Treaty signed by Traitor John Kerry a Democrat

No longer is “Why does someone need an AR-15? Why does someone need a 30-round magazine?” a rhetorical question. The Democrats themselves have provided the answer; “Because, if we won’t submit to socialism, you will send armed, violent terrorists to destroy our livelihoods and homes.”

03/21/22 – Indiana eliminates permit requirement for carrying a handgun in public

Holcomb rejected claims by opponents of the new law that it endangers Hoosiers because without a handgun permit system police no longer will have a database or another easy way to identify who is legally entitled to be carrying a handgun.

Missing from the story is the reason Holcomb gave for his rejection of this logical objection. This isn’t surprising, as none was given. Apparently the police are expected to develop special psychic powers that will enable them to determine whether a person can legally carry a firearm in a public place or not.

Any crazy in a crowd might now be seen to have a gun, but the presence of a gun will be no reason wonder if someone might be crazy. You’ll just have to wait and see what he does. If you miss something, and bad things happen, you can always add the firearm charge afterward and explain why it was that you couldn’t check.

Last edited 2 years ago by Greg

Any crazy in a crowd might now be seen to have a gun, but the presence of a gun will be no reason wonder if someone might be crazy. 

Thanks for the reminder of how dim-witted, naïve, stupid and ignorant you liberals are. Anyone with bad intent that wants to carry a gun will carry anyway. You think not being properly licensed and legally allowed to carry stopped them? Worse, when you goddamn liberals get those who illegally carry AND commit a crime in custody, you release them, no bail, no charges.

Like your friend you sympathize with so emphatically because Rittenhouse shot him, Gaige was ILLEGALLY carrying the weapon he drew on Rittenhouse. He didn’t care about having a license; he just wanted be a good fascist and shoot someone that opposes them. Didn’t work out too well for the punk.

It’s called “Constitutional carry” for a reason. Especially now that your liberal judges and prosecutors don’t incarcerate anyone anymore, what was the point of licensed carry? As usual, in the liberal system, only the law abiding are restricted.

The primary reason for licensing is that a licensed carrier can carry across state lines in states that reciprocate. Constitutional carry does not provide that benefit, at least until NATIONAL Constitutional carry is passed.

Get a clue. Democrat policies that encourage more crime makes the gun situation worse.

Last edited 2 years ago by Just Plain Bill

Anyone with bad intent that wants to carry a gun will carry anyway.  

Not without the possibility of being questioned about why they’re entering a public setting with it.

Not without the possibility of being questioned about why they’re entering a public setting with it.

With the Democrat’s defunding of police and liberal DA’s and judges letting criminals go free right and left, that’s not much of a possibility.