Since a jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse of all charges in the shooting of three people, two fatally, at a Kenosha, Wisconsin, Black Lives Matter riot, the Left has been exacting revenge upon the teen for protecting his own life.
A number of far-Left student organizations at Arizona State University, including the Students for Socialism, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition, called upon the administration to bar his admission, claiming that having a "white supremacist killer" on campus would attract extremist groups.
In addition, Rittenhouse's acquittal prompted Elizabeth Morrison, Levi Strauss chief diversity, inclusion & belonging officer, to call for more stringent gun control legislation
Denying Rittenhouse admission to the school of his choice for political reasons is cheap and tawdry; restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners because you disagree with a verdict without having viewed the evidence is deplorable.
But now it's become even more egregious. Now they're attacking the very notion of self-defense.
It was all predicted by Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), a Colorado-based nonprofit Second Amendment support organization serving members nationwide.
He made the prediction during an exclusive interview with Newsmax, conducted one day before the Rittenhouse verdict.
"The Rittenhouse trial could definitely affect self-defense rights in the United States," he told Newsmax, adding that limiting self-defense claims would also negatively impact the very foundation of the Second Amendment.
It turned out Brown was right — and it didn't take long to prove it.
NBC legal analyst Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a former state and federal prosecutor, argued in a New York Times column that the Rittenhouse verdict proved that the time had come to reassess the use of firearms for self-defense.
"Instead of distancing Mr. Rittenhouse from or minimizing the effect of his weapon, Mr. Rittenhouse and his lawyers built their case upon it," she wrote. "Because he had a gun, he found himself in a situation where he needed to use it. In other words, the gun he carried was not a deterrent, but the very reason for the escalation to violence."
As Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards put it, Weinstein argued that Rittenhouse's use of a firearm to protect himself "is evidence that the laws surrounding self-defense simply aren't compatible with a country that recognizes the right to keep and bear arms." He added incredulously, "No, seriously."
In a similar vein, an editorial in The Pitt News, a newspaper serving the University of Pittsburgh student body, claimed that Rittenhouse was acquitted because of a fluke in the judicial system.
"The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse ended with him walking free on essentially a technicality," the editorial began, adding that he "was acquitted on all charges earlier this month because of vague self-defense laws."
There's nothing "vague" about either self-defense or the laws that permit it as a defense to homicide. And it definitely isn't a "technicality." Self-defense undoubtedly comes into into crystal clarity the moment anyone is forced to use it.
Just ask the Illinois woman who was confronted by an armed carjacker in Chicago's Roseland neighborhood Monday afternoon.
"I had just come out of the bank and was sitting in my car about to lock my door to pull off in leave, and he opened my door and put a gun in my face," she told Chicago CBS affiliate Channel 2.
"And when he saw me get mine, he looked surprised — and I started shooting, and he started running," she added. "Thank God I had my gun, or I'd probably be dead right now."
As Brown told Newsmax, the right to keep and bear arms is an essential element of the right of self-defense.
"The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting," he said. Nor is it about plinking at tin cans or target shooting with friends. It's about the protection of life — the life of one's self and well as the one's loved ones.
Brown added that infringing upon self-defense rights could even go beyond impacting the Second Amendment.
"It could conceivably adversely affect a whole range of defense measures — you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself," he said.
Think it can't happen here? Think again.
Five years ago could you have imagined an America that defunded police? That abolished cash bail, placing suspected lawbreakers on the streets? That permitted gangs of criminals to loot retail businesses unrestricted?
As the Greek philosopher Plato once observed, "One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
If you haven't engaged in the political process before, this might be a good time to begin — before our inferiors remove our right to defend ourselves.
Meanwhile, Rittenhouse should forget ASU. Hillsdale College and Liberty University are both calling. And they both respect the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. Read Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.