The St. Louis Incident Shows How Important The Second Amendment Is For Self-Defense
The viral video of a wealthy couple in St. Louis brandishing firearms to protect their property from a swarm of “Black Lives Matter” rioters who invaded their neighborhood after breaking down the gate to their private community shows how important the Second Amendment is for self-defense, especially in regards to automatic rifles since puny pistols wouldn’t have realistically protected those potential victims from an angry mob of several hundred people.
The St. Louis Incident
All of America is talking about the wealthy couple in St. Louis who brandished firearms to protect their property from a swarm of “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) rioters. The angry mob invaded their neighborhood after breaking down the gate to their private community, having done so in order to “protest” directly in front of the mayor’s house who lives nearby. Mark McCloskey and his wife Patricia felt in fear of their lives and thus rushed to the front lawn with weapons drawn in order to stave off any bloodshed after they spotted a few of the rioters brandishing their own weapons first, wearing body armor, and heard them issuing threats to the couple’s lives and property. Mr. McCloskey was interviewed by local media a day after the incident and said that “the only thing that stopped the crowd was my rifle”. The couple’s attorney also released a statement reminding the media of these two lawyers’ professional commitment to civil rights, their support of BLM, and clarified that the threat that they felt at the time was from white agitators, not African-Americans.
A King Protects His Castle
Those who support the McCloskey’s actions point to Missouri’s “castle doctrine” that legally allows residents to defend their private property from invasion, including through the use of lethal force. The rioters, after all, literally broke down the gate to a neighborhood where all the property including the street itself is private, not public. They were, by definition of the law, trespassing on private property and therefore subject to the “castle doctrine”. BLM also has an infamous history of violence, especially since it was reactivated as the de-facto street force of the Democrat Party for waging the Hybrid War of Terror on America following the Color Revolution “trigger event” of George Floyd’s death during his arrest by the Minneapolis police in late May. Their opponents, however, claim that the couple is “racist” and “broke the law” by “threatening peaceful protesters”. What’s most ironic about that position is that many of the same people who are waging the War on Police now want that same institution to intervene in charging the McCloskeys and possibly imprisoning them.
Puny Pistol vs. Automatic Rifle
Whatever one’s views are towards the St. Louis incident, it indisputably proved how important the Second Amendment is for self-defense, especially in regards to automatic rifles. There was no way that Mrs. McCloskey’s puny pistol would have stopped the angry mob of several hundred people if instigators within the group manipulated crowd psychology in order to weaponize this mass of people for criminal ends, but Mr. McCloskey’s automatic rifle definitely did e the job in successfully deterring them from attempting that scenario. Those who want to restrict or even repeal the Second Amendment claim that automatic rifles or firearms of any kind respectively aren’t needed for self-defense when the police and other legally designated security authorities are already entrusted with the responsibility to protect the population. The police, however, were nowhere to be seen in the now-viral video footage of the incident, and there was no way that they could have responded in time to save the McCloskeys if the situation suddenly turned violent.
Staving Off Democrat Tyranny
Like Mr. McCloskey said, “the only thing that stopped the crowd was my rifle”, not his wife’s puny pistol. Those who embrace their constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms and purchase automatic rifles do so not in order to carry out the unprovoked mass killing of peaceful unarmed people or attempt to overthrow the government, but to have the peace of mind that they can defend themselves, their family, and their property in the event that the police cease to function how they’re supposed to like is presently happening in the context of the ever-worsening Hybrid War of Terror on America. If people were forbidden from legally purchasing automatic rifles, then they could very easily find themselves as the mercy of the mob one of these days since puny pistols aren’t going to deter or stop several hundred frenzied rioters. The worst-case scenario is if the Democrats master their manipulation of mass psychology to provoke riots on demand, after which their “fellow travelers” of Antifa can manipulate crowd psychology to sic the mob on their perceived political enemies.
Considering what’s unfolded across the US since the onset of the kinetic phase of the Hybrid War of Terror on America, one can reasonably assert in hindsight that the Democrats’ obsession with so-called “gun control” and “police reform” (a euphemism for disarming and ultimately disbanding this institution) isn’t predicated on “protecting people’s lives” but putting them at the mercy of the party-controlled mob. The Democrats always exploit emotive examples of someone abusing their right to bear arms to slaughter innocent people and corrupt cops taking advantage of their authority to abuse and sometimes even kill without provocation the same people that they’re supposed to protect and serve. They do this because they understand how effective such incidents are in shaping the population’s perceptions of the Second Amendment and the country’s security services. Their goal all along hasn’t been to make America safer for everyone, but to make it more dangerous for those who oppose the party’s diktats through the threat of mob violence if they dare to resist.
By Andrew Korybko
Source: One World