Is Carrying A Gun Provocation To Be Attacked?
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 8 months ago
The Left has been floating the idea that mere possession of a weapon is a provocation. They contend the sight of someone in possession of a weapon is sufficient provocation for a person to attack the person who possesses the weapon.
This creates a bizarre world where mere open possession of a weapon is sufficient to justify a deadly attack on the possessor.
[ … ]
In a sane world, carrying a weapon is not a provocation to be attacked. The Left has worked hard to make it a provocation, in law.
[ … ]
The concept that an openly armed person is a provocation to attack appears to flow from a simple premise on the left: A person doing something a leftist does not like is a provocation to attack them. It is part of the broader philosophical abandonment of the rule of law.
Evidence for this theory exists in the left’s theory of speech from any opponent. Speech from an opponent is considered to be violent, and worthy of attack. Violence, from the left, on the other hand, is considered to be speech.
When leftists surround a car and beat on it; that is not provocation; when leftists shoot at people; it is not provocation; when people the left does not agree with, display weapons; that is considered a provocation by the left.
This is a retreat to tribalism by the Left: Those who agree with us are people; those who disagree with us are the enemy.
A person who is driving a vehicle is behind the wheel of a weapon of mass destruction. Therefore, you are justified in killing them.
It sounds stupid, doesn’t it?
That’s because it is stupid.
In the comments on person writes “I don’t believe in open carry” because it might tempt a bold criminal to snatch your piece.
There is nothing to believe or disbelieve. It’s a practice, not a proposition. It would have been correct to say he doesn’t practice it. To which we might respond, so be it. We won’t require it. Do as you wish.
And he should respond, “It’s a free country, and you do as you wish too.”
|
|
On April 24, 2022 at 10:04 pm, Fred said:
I agree. Disarm the police. I don’t believe in open carry either because it’s not a system of belief, it’s a manner of carrying a weapon.
On April 24, 2022 at 10:13 pm, Phil Ossiferz Stone said:
I’m not going to openly tell the enemy of my Republic and my faith that he can ‘do as he wishes.’ That’s a bunch of white Boomer altruistic baloney. He is my enemy and I hate his guts and I carry iron to defend myself against him. He can go to hell, and I will assist him with this procedure if needs must.
There. I feel better now.
On April 24, 2022 at 10:18 pm, RHT447 said:
“Individually, we do not bear arms because we are afraid. We bear arms
as a declaration of capacity. An armed man can cope – either in the city
or in the wilderness – and because he is armed, he is not afraid.
The hoplophobe fears and, yes, hates us, because we are not afraid. We
are overwhelmingly “other” than he, and in a way that emphasizes his
afflictions.”
Jeff Cooper
On April 24, 2022 at 11:45 pm, Dan said:
Words mean ONLY what the left wants them to mean and the ONLY rule they have is WIN…by whatever means necessary. Attempting to engage with or coexist with leftists
is pointless. You have only two rational choices for dealing with their evil and insanity.
Avoid them…..or exterminate them. All other actions are a waste of time and energy.
On April 25, 2022 at 8:57 am, Nosmo said:
“The Left has been floating the idea that mere possession of a weapon is a provocation. They contend the sight of someone in possession of a weapon is sufficient provocation for a person to attack the person who possesses the weapon.”
Well, OK, then, but….if “…the sight of someone in possession of a weapon is sufficient provocation…” to justify an attack (and I’m assuming “physical” attack rather than verbal or Twitter “attacks” which do not constitute the threat to life and safety inherent in physical attacks) by Leftists, does not self-identifying as a Leftist equally constitute “sufficient provocation” by establishing a threat which justifies acting in self defense?
If it develops that there is evidence of a sufficient quantity of Leftists physically attacking firearms possessors without any overt provocation except possession of a legally carried firearm would prophylactic application of force be legally permitted to prevent death or severe bodily harm?
Whether or not that becomes the case, initiation of a physical attack legally permits a proportional defensive response; if the initiated attack involves any degree of attempt to gain control of the firearm it can be reasonably assumed that once control has been gained a lethal threat exists, justifying a lethal self defense response.
Is the Left really stupid enough to pursue this line of thought? Because I’m confident there are some Leftists stupid enough whom it might encourage to transform an extremely dumb idea into action that could have very severe, and widespread, consequences, and there are some gun owners who, very unfortunately, might engage in deliberate action supportive of such a confrontation.
On April 25, 2022 at 11:28 am, Arthur Sido said:
I don’t open carry but it doesn’t bother me when others do, just as it doesn’t bother me to see someone carrying a book or newspaper in public.
On April 25, 2022 at 3:04 pm, Furminator said:
When I see someone open-carrying I still can’t help but stare. I gotta know what they like to shoot.
On April 25, 2022 at 3:12 pm, Brad said:
Furminator
Same here. Especially LE. First thing I look for is to see if the still have plastic sights on their Glock.
On April 25, 2022 at 7:06 pm, JB said:
An opportunity to dispatch more communists.