MaverickNH
NES Member
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8088a/8088a3f251dd7814b60fafcaeb1d2d1ebe7a4108" alt="frenchpress.thedispatch.com"
Christians, Gun Rights, and the American Social Compact
Kyle Rittenhouse and the deadly wages of recklessness.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/94d7c/94d7cf6822dffafb499fd0df9bfc589a21ff4534" alt="frenchpress.thedispatch.com"
”By arming himself and wading into a riot, Rittenhouse behaved irresponsibly and recklessly...Moreover, when Christians celebrate or even merely rationalize his actions they are also behaving irresponsibly and recklessly. Even if Rittenhouse is legally vindicated, his decision to exercise a right resulted in a grave wrong.”
This where the “Rules of Engagement” for armed self-defense are controlled by the supporters of peaceful protestors, who do not “condone” violent protest, but excuse violent protest (rioting, looting, burning) as a means of social change. This becomes accessory to violence especially when *with* the collaboration of government. If police cannot, will not or are directed to not, engage to protect public and private property by force, is anyone who does so an illegal and unjust “vigilante”?
Are groups that use social media to communicate and respond for the defense of public and private property “domestic terrorists”?
The many who support “peaceful protest” remain very NIMBY and support police funding in “their” areas. And they’ve evolved a OIYBY rule that *if* you use self-defense, that it be only in defense of life and limb “Only In Your Back Yard.” Peaceful Protestors and Violent Anarchists can cross city, county and state lines but only locals can watch public and private property be vandalized, looted and burned?
I didn’t swear to abide by any authorities’’ commands that issue such rules of engagement.