…in the face of abdication of law enforcement: A paper.
A reminder that the purpose of police is not to protect the public, but rather to protect the criminals from the inevitable vigilantism in their absence.
[Monday-morning update]
More thoughts at Captain’s Journal.
Looks interesting…unable to open it without registering, will have to do that later. Unless someone else has already done so and sees fit to post..
I downloaded it (pdf) without registering. Had the same experience as you when I tried opening on the site.
“I downloaded it (pdf) without registering.”
I tried again was like you able to download without registering. Interesting read (so far). Too bad no one outside of gun-rights folks will likely read it.
I’ve seen Instapundit say this a lot. The police do protect them from us but who is them and who is us is rather fluid. There are a lot of vets and CIA spooks who are leftists and even the ones who aren’t might not have a political view of how things should be that you will like. The stereotype that the right has all the guns is wrong.
A breakdown of law and order wont just lead to individuals protecting themselves or private security protecting homes and businesses. Roving bands of highly trained professional paramilitaries and ex CIA operators engaging in shady shenanigans and assassinations could happen too. This situation must be avoided. Anyone thinking they can ride the chaos is delusional but it does make me wonder what Democrats have planned since they always have things gamed out many steps in advance with win traps built in if they fail at something.
This is interesting:
“• One controversial incident involves the August 25th shooting of
three rioters (two of whom died, while the other suffered a non-life threatening elbow injury) in Kenosha, Wisconsin by Kyle Rittenhouse, an armed teenager who apparently came to the city to assist others who were guarding businesses.218 Kenosha County prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse, who is currently in custody, with first-degree intentional homicide.219 Rittenhouse, however, seems to have a plausible self-defense defense, given that several videos (bolstered by witness accounts) of the incident suggest that he was about to be attacked when he first fired his weapon, and was about to be set upon by vigilantes when he used his
firearm a second time.220 One YouTube user has helpfully compiled all known footage of the incident”
approx. pg 37-38