The Right to Self-Defense is Also on Trial in America | OPINION

OPINION | The opinions expressed in this article are that of the writer, and may not necessarily reflect those of Tatum Report LLC

There is a war on self-defense in America. Many first saw it prominently on display in St. Louis with Mark and Patricia McCloskey. The couple was confronted at their home by a BLM mob, threatening arson, murder, and even to kill their dog.

Threatened, the McCloskeys armed themselves. Mark had an AR-15, Patricia a small semi-auto pistol. They injured no one and successfully defended their lives and property. Literally, self-defense. They were right to fear for their lives after what leftist rioters did during the summer of 2020.

However, a morally corrupt St. Louis County circuit attorney disregarded the McCloskeys’ self-defense rights. She sided with the lawbreakers, not charging one person, only the McCloskeys. Eventually, the Missouri governor pardoned the couple.

Self-defense is again on trial, along with Kyle Rittenhouse. The jury’s verdict is imminent. The stellar incompetence of the prosecution aside, I was stunned at how much I learned at the end of the trial and how it differed from state media reporting.

I did not know Rittenhouse lived on the Illinois-Wisconsin border. All I heard was ominous talk about “crossing state lines.”

I didn’t know that Rittenhouse’s father lives in Kenosha, about 20 miles away, a 30-minute drive.

I did not know Rittenhouse did not carry the gun across state lines.

I did know, however, that it was legal for Rittenhouse, at 17, to possess a rifle in Wisconsin, even though no major news outlet reported on it.

The prosecution never did due diligence to determine if the rifle was indeed illegal. A tape measure and eyes are all that was necessary to measure the barrel length.

The judge tossed out the gun charge on the spot. Think charging Rittenhouse with possessing a gun illegally, which he hadn’t, helped or hurt his case?

Yes, self-defense is on trial, too. There is an inextricable link between an individual’s right to keep and bear arms and self-defense to preserve the right to life. Not even the Constitution gives you this right—nature’s God does.

Your right to self-defense truly exists only so long as you can possess the most practical means to defend yourself. Our culture and technology dictate that’s a firearm. Effectively, you don’t have a right to self-defense if you’re prevented from possessing a gun.

This brings us back to the senseless things the prosecution said aloud, repeatedly dipping their ladle into a big bucket of stupid. Lead prosecutor Thomas Binger slurped several gulps.

Although, Binger may be the best defense attorney I’ve ever seen, despite him being on the side of the State.

He nearly single-handedly proved a case for self-defense, even though he has no clue what constitutes self-defense. And he has even less of a clue about how to handle a firearm.

I’m sure Binger intended to “frighten” the jury with that big scary “assault weapon.” Admittedly, pointing the thing at them, finger on the trigger, would do the trick. I’d duck. I wouldn’t trust that guy with a straw and spitballs.

Even my grandchildren know about basic firearms safety, and they aren’t old enough to handle a real gun yet. This is really basic stuff, but so important—right Alec?

Then comes Binger’s crowning moment when anti-self-defense idiots installed him as their king. He said, “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.” This is so staggeringly stupid; I lost brain cells just hearing it. But it proves self-defense is also on trial.

Think about that statement.

Your state laws govern how a person may carry a gun: open or concealed, with or without a permit. However, what doesn’t vary from state to state is the primary reason for having a firearm: self-defense. You carry that gun in case you need to protect yourself or other innocents from a criminal or even a dangerous animal.

So, according to Binger’s interpretation of self-defense, you lose your right to self-defense if you’re prepared to defend yourself.

No evidence presented—by either side—proved anything other than self-defense occurred.

And that’s how we know not only Kyle Rittenhouse was on trial but every Americans’ God-given right to self-defense.

Join The Discussion

Related Posts