'Stand Your Ground' Against the Left
Dishonestly interweaving the Zimmerman trial with Florida's "stand your ground" law, even though that law was not invoked during the trial, Attorney General Holder has capitalized upon another crisis that should not go to waste. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Holder has merely fabricated the latest crisis. This administration has a disturbing propensity for manipulating tragedy and doing all in its power to jab sharp objects into open wounds.
To Holder and the president, the isolated events involving Trayvon Martin, which have not been publicly replicated anywhere else in America on any regular or reported basis, serve as yet another excuse to launch sweeping radical attacks on the rights of all Americans. They loathe the ability of citizens to protect themselves against the left's predators, whether social or political.
Just as the president and his minions rely entirely upon "straw men" to lie to their audiences about imaginary demons, they employ "straw facts". Counting on the stunning ignorance and gullibility of their listeners, they simply make up the people and events needed to justify the damage they intend to do. The audience members blink rapidly, lick their lips, and clap joyously. Think Nancy Pelosi.
In a string of lies and half truths, amounting to merely another public speech or day of Congressional testimony for Holder, he premised his call for nationwide action against "stand your ground" laws with these whoppers:
"..it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and
sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken....
But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense
and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long and -- unfortunately -- has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation -- we must stand our ground -- to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent."
In addition to Holder having no factual support for his claims, with none to follow, his statements are premised upon very fundamental liberal bigotries. The person who lawfully owns a gun and legally uses it in self defense against an illegally armed criminal intent on violence is the person most likely to benefit from a "stand your ground" law. Therefore, in Holder's mind and on the left, it is precisely that person who "sow[s] dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods". Such a person "encourages violent situations to escalate in public", and "victimize[s] too many who are innocent".
He can only be speaking of lawful gun owners, since no one in his right mind could believe that Holder is talking about "stand your ground" laws applying to the rampage of daily violence that involves the criminal use of illegal guns throughout neighborhoods in every Democrat-run city in the nation. Stand your ground laws don't exist in Democrat enclaves, and even if they did, they are not invoked in the neighborhood gun fights, gang wars, or drive-by shootings the left allows. Holder's audience at the NAACP convention doubtless knew this better than most, but they clapped like loyal zealots just the same.
Just as Holder's "straw-man" legal gun owner is fictional, the "straw facts" Holder employs are pure deceit. There is no epidemic of accidental or malicious shootings caused by some expanded concept of self-defense. Indeed, there is not even a short list. There is no fear of dangerous conflicts in our neighborhoods arising from "stand your ground" laws. And hypothetically, if there were, wouldn't it be constructive for the assailant to be constrained by such fear not to attack? Who besides the prospective attacker would be risking such a dangerous conflict, or its escalation?
Similarly, how does the natural right of self-defense in any form undermine public safety? Where is the 'long list' of tragedies involving self-defense and "stand your ground" laws? Similarly, I'd like to know more about all those 'innocents' who have been killed by others defending against attack. If someone else shot them in self defense, I question the presumption of their innocence, even while the left considers them social martyrs.
In Holder's world and on the left in general, the criminal is always virtuous, and in need of protection as he practices violent social justice. The criminal is the victim. We needn't look further than Holder's eager representation of terrorists while in charge of the department at Covington and Burling that proudly fills that role to know that there is no ideological predator he finds undeserving. Since the left's criminals are only evening the historical score, a practice Holder has blessed through DOJ policies, the administration would like to ensure they don't get shot in the process. It would be grossly unfair to the criminal if he could not safely practice violent social justice due to the risk of "workplace violence" should his gun use be reciprocated.
Because the left believes the criminal to be virtuous, he clearly deserves the advantage. The benefit of the doubt regarding whether a victim is armed or not should go to the criminal. The victim should be forced to surrender or retreat, putting himself at the fatal disadvantage of a supplicant in the process, but this is acceptable to the left, since the victim is only forfeiting what the criminal is entitled to take, including a life.
We have become accustomed to ridiculous statements from our president and his hatchet men, but these remarks by Holder are unusually blatant in their utter falsehood. He is peddling lies. If Holder actually believed in a duty to "ensure that our laws reduce violence", he would do well to advocate for concealed carry and "stand your ground" laws all over the country. Indeed, the left's urban black constituents would likely benefit the most from both being able to defend themselves lawfully, and from keeping the predators guessing which of their victims would shoot them first.
Needless to say, we can't do that. It might actually work.