Since I’ve never hesitated to criticize ESR, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that he’s raised some good points on his public Q&A concerning gun rights and the recent fatal shooting of an armed protestor by federal agents in Minneapolis:
Q. This Alex Pieri character was well within his rights to be carrying a firearm at a demonstration.
A. Gun rights folks say “Yes, absolutely!” The fact that he was carrying a weapon was not grounds to shoot him. The fact that some government officials have made remarks that could be interpreted that way is immaterial; that’s on them, not on us.
Q. If, while at a demonstration, you interfere with an LEO criminally overreaching his authority, and you are armed, and you are shot, are you a Second Amendment hero?
A. Gun rights folks answer “Yes.” Nobody is obliged to roll over for the equivalent of Redcoats trying to confiscate civilian weapons. In that case, we have your back.
Q. If, while at a demonstration, you interfere with an LEO in the performance of his lawful duties with force appropriate to the occasion, does the fact that you’re armed when you get shot suddenly make you a Second Amendment hero?
A. Gun rights folks say “No, it does not.” In fact, under those circumstances, the fact that you were carrying a gun justifies the LEO believing you are a lethal risk even if they’ve secured your primary weapon. Because holdout guns and knives exist. If you get shot, we’re not going to cry for you.
Q. If, while at a demonstration, you interfere with an LEO performing lawful duties but using what you deem to be excessive force, and you are armed, and you get shot, are you a Second Amendment hero?
A. Gun rights folks answer “Maybe.” It depends on whether a reasonable person would agree with you that the amount of force used was excessive. A lot of what’s been going on is an attempt to confuse these last three cases in an attempt to make gun rights folks into hypocrites and bootlickers. But we’re not going to roll over for that. We carry guns. Because we’re aware of the power that puts in our hands, we think a lot about violence and ethics and morality. The distinctions among these cases matter a lot.
Q. If you know that people being shot at demonstrations are trained agitators hooked into a covert network run by revolutionary Communists that intends to create violent confrontations and martyrs, how does this change the moral calculus of police shootings?
A. Gun rights folks answer: “These people are no longer innocent civilians, and they’re not the militia within the meaning of the Second Amendment, either; they have placed themselves in the same category as terrorists and illegal combatants.”
Of course, the idea that federal agents enforcing immigration law and the literally tens of millions of violations therein is intrinsically absurd. Everything going on in Minneapolis is the theater kid color revolution crowd that is normally engaged in spying on everyone, so trying to appeal to Americans in their defense is a definite no-go.
I’m pretty sure Constitutional protections don’t apply to many of them in the first place.