categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

shows where their priorities lie

A little over a month ago, I made the following comment in response to the "gun violence" candle-light vigils anti-rights cultists held and attended:

One interesting side-effect from not making this distinction is that by holding their candle-light vigils for “victims of ‘gun violence’”, the Brady Campaign and their sycophants are, by definition, memorializing those murderers, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers, home-invaders, and other scumbags who were shot down in self-defense by their intended victims, or by the police in the execution of their duties. As always, “gun control” extremists are aiding, abetting, and sympathizing with criminals. Disgusting.

Predictably, this all-too-accurate observation caused the hoplophobes who read my weblog to lose voluntary control over their thoughts and fingers, and the resulting verbal diarrhea… well, it was not pretty for anyone watching. However, unlike the overwhelming majority of collectivists who seek to abridge, infringe upon, deny, or outright destroy the rights of others, I stand by my words and even went so far as to substantiate them factually and rationally:

However, the Brady Campaign did not subtract those 326+ from their total “gun violence” victims number. The Brady Campaign does not recognize, or even admit to, the distinction between “predatory” violence and “protective” violence.

As such, by the arbitrary definition put forward by the Brady Campaign themselves, when they “host[ed] a nationwide candlelight vigil to honor victims of gun violence”, they were “honoring” those lawbreakers shot and killed by police while exercising their duties and those criminals justifiably shot and killed in self-defense. They were “honoring” those “murderers, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers, home-invaders, and other scumbags” I mention above.

And they knew they were doing it – after all, they established the meaning of the concept of “gun violence” so conveniently on their webpage.

The numbers are fairly plain to see, and the conclusions are inescapable; however, I could not point to a specific instance of "gun control" extremists intentionally and directly "honoring" a criminal shot down in self-defense or during legal intervention… That is, I could not, until now:

csgvdefendscriminalsNow, you may want to take a couple of minutes and read the whole account at Ocala.com but the cliff notes goes like this: Dan Daley goes over Willie Chester’s house, does not enter the property and asks him if he could do something about a barking dog that apparently he owned. Apparently words were exchanged and Chester told Daley to leave which he did. Then Chester left his property, went in the street, chased Daley and began beating on him. Daley cries for help, nobody responds and he produces a gun and shoots Chester four times resulting in his death. That is the narrative (minus some details) given by eye witnesses and the fact that Daley was not placed under arrest gives credence that the shooting might be treated as self defense.

Now, since Daley had a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit, CSGV automatically developed an erection against him. I think they pretty much stopped reading the whole article after that revelation so they are, once again caught with their panties in a wad and halfway down their legs.

After you catch up on the full news story provided by Miguel, you also need to read the follow-up:

Chief Assistant State Attorney Ric Ridgway said his office determined Daley had a lawful right to do what he did.

“Daley was not the aggressor,” he said.

And, at the time of the incident, Daley was in fear and had a right to use deadly force, Ridgway said.

He said the key was that Daley was reasonably in fear of great bodily harm. He has a broken jaw bone and a broken bone in his face, Ridgway added.

(Emphasis added.)

Unlike the anti-rights cultists, it would appear as though the Chief Assistant State Attorney down in Florida understands that "beaten to death" is still a very real cause-of-death all over the country, and that two broken bones in a person’s head puts them well and firmly on the path to that outcome. Thankfully, Mr. Dan Daley had a tool with which to defend himself, the presence of mind to use it, and the willingness to actually do so.

On the other hand, in their unending, frothing-at-the-mouth crusade to demonize and dehumanize firearm owners and carriers, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Ownership was all-too-ready to reflexively dive to the defense of the "gun violence" "victim" in this particular story… despite the "victim", in fact, being the individual who was bodily assaulting and grievously harming another human being, without provocation. Their desired "victim" was, in fact, the aggressor in this situation, per the opinion of eye witnesses and the aforementioned lawyer; so much for "a murder case".

It could have been, though, if Mr. Daley did not have his firearm on him… of course, at that point, if Willie Chester had managed to beat Mr. Daley to death, the CSGV and their zealous sycophants would not care in the slightest, since it would not be a "gun death", and thus not a statistic they could use as leverage against people like you and me. That thought process only gets sicker the more I think about it.

But this, right here, is exactly the mentality I was talking about in my initial quote at the beginning of this post – "gun control" extremists are "honoring" criminals like Willie Chester, a person who seemed intent on beating another man into submission, if not death, simply because he happened to be shot down by someone wielding a firearm. If that is not indicative of their mentality as a whole, I do not know what is.

5 comments to shows where their priorities lie

  • MAJ Mike

    We don’t fit their narrative.

  • [...] Linoge found a follow up on that story. Dan Daley was truly defending his life and the D.A. determined that the killing of Willy Chester was justified and in Self Defense. [...]

  • SGB

    What MAJ Mike said.

  • Mark

    The problem is that they seek to make their narrative everyone’s narrative, using the power of Government to do so.

  • @ MAJ Mike: Pretty much no. They would pretty much rather we rolled over and died, and have said as much on repeated occasions.

    @ Mark: And that is my primary complaint with “gun control” extremists – if they do not want to own firearms, fine, do not own firearms, but do not presume to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their lives (so long as those other people are not detrimentally affecting anyone else). The second you start using force to impose your will on others, you lose any claim to moral high ground you might have otherwise had.