The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Denver Covers Up Lee Keltner's Assassination
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

UPDATE: Response for Progressive Prosecutor Beth McCann’s office posted below.


SAY HIS NAME: LEE KELTNER (photo courtesy of Suzan Keltner)

Self-described “Progressive Prosecutor” Beth McCann, the district attorney of Denver, campaigned on a promise to “keep our city safe and provide equal justice for all,” “to rebuild trust” and “to keep open lines of communication.”

Bullcrap.

McCann’s syrupy sweet talk is a sick, twisted and deadly crock. The Mile High City’s homicide rate is at a record high; aggravated assaults are skyrocketing. COVID lockdowns decimated local businesses, but roving “homeless” agitators took over downtown Denver and turned it into a riot-friendly, drug-addled, violence-wracked empire. McCann vindictively prosecuted besieged motorist Jennifer Watson, who was attacked by George Floyd rioters blocking downtown streets, instead of prosecuting the thugs; a jury acquitted her on McCann’s most overblown charges.

As many law-abiding citizens and I learned the hard way in July 2020, you can’t hold a “Back the Blue” rally downtown in Civic Center Park without getting ambushed and beaten bloody while cops stand by and do nothing. And as more patriots learned just a few months later in October 2020, you can’t peaceably assemble to support law and order without the risk of getting harassed by professional agitators, stalked by leftist media and killed. Last week, just as the high-profile case involving the assassination of Colorado patriot and cowboy hat-maker Lee Keltner was headed to trial after a 17-month delay, Progressive Prosecutor Beth McCann dropped murder charges against Matthew Dolloff, the Occupy Wall Street/antifa/Black Lives Matter sympathizer who fraudulently and illegally posed as a “security guard” for liberal local news station KUSA-TV (“9News”) before shooting Keltner in the face at point-blank range with a gun that the news station denies knowing he was carrying.

After initially charging Dolloff with second-degree murder, Progressive Prosecutor McCann has now magically determined that “we are not able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” She will move to drop all charges at a pretrial conference next Monday and splattered the news across the local media before all members of Keltner’s immediate family had been notified.

So much for rebuilding “trust” and those “open lines of communication.”

“Lee’s life mattered,” his mom, Carol Keltner, told me this week. “The family is devastated” by McCann’s shocking decision. “There will be no justice for my son,” she lamented. She is urging Coloradans to join her daughter and Lee’s sister, Suzan, this coming Monday, March 21, at 10 a.m. at the Denver Courthouse on 520 W. Colfax Ave. for a peaceful rally in Lee Keltner’s name. Suzan Keltner told “Denver in Decay” documentarian and KNUS radio talk-show host Steffan Tubbs that the DA’s office had initially informed her family last fall that the prosecution was “in essence, a slam dunk case.”

What changed? Well, just like the “science” now tells the COVID-19 tyrants that masks and lockdowns are no longer necessary in the midst of a heated political campaign season, the “law” now tells McCann that Lee Keltner’s murder was not murder — despite her office failing to interview key witnesses about what they believe was a coordinated ambush involving Dolloff, BLM radical Jeremiah Elliott and 9News producer Zack Newman.

Lee’s friend and witness to his murder, Steven Wright, calls KUSA’s activist journalists “the 9News hit team” and told me he vows he “will not stand down” until the whole truth of Keltner’s death is exposed. The station has a history of fomenting hatred against conservatives, including mocking those of us attacked at the July 2020 Back the Blue rally, and sneering at and smearing those who attended John “Tig” Tiegen’s peaceful October 2020 “Patriot Muster,” where attendees were harassed by antifa and BLM agitators as they departed — up to and including the moment Lee Keltner was stalked by Elliott, with Dolloff and Newman trailing nearby, while cameras rolled.

Elliott was captured on video running from the murder scene, gloating about “one less white supremacist” and “f—- yeah, right in the f—-ing dome.”

Wright left several unreturned messages with the DA, informing them that, “You don’t have all the facts. This entire ambush was around a violent episode that was premeditated. Once the cameras came out, Elliott went full idiot. This was exactly 9News’ objective. Depose me.”

“We believe Lee was targeted,” sister Suzan told YouTube podcaster Madyson Marquette last week. But after “begging and pleading” with prosecutors to move forward, Suzan Keltner was told McCann’s office would not let a jury of Lee’s peers hear the evidence.

What changed? Tubbs told me: “Several witnesses have told me that though they made themselves available, they were never interviewed by police or the DA’s office. Denver District Attorney Beth McCann is a disgrace to her profession. She caved likely due to media attorneys and fear of being canceled. … This could have been delivered to a grand jury. Dolloff should have at minimum faced a jury of his peers. Let them decide. … I hope Monday’s rally sends a loud (peaceful) shock wave to the idiots in downtown Denver.”

And a warning for the rest of law-abiding America: Beware the Progressive Prosecutor who delivers “justice” for some, retribution against patriots, cover for media propagandists, and a Third World hellhole to the taxpayers who fund her paychecks.

***
After my column deadline, the Denver DA’s communications director Carolyn Tyler responded to my questions. My response to her non-response is posted here as well.

Hello,

I am a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist on deadline with questions regarding the DA’s decision to drop charges against Matthew Dolloff.

ORDER IT NOW

1) Did the DA’s office interview witness Steven Wright before making its decision?
2) How many total witnesses did the DA’s office interview before making its decision?
3) Why hasn’t the DA’s office answered Wright’s phone calls the past week?
4) Will HALO camera video from the day of the murder be made available to the press and public?

One more question:

What will happen to the issue regarding potential criminal action against Dolloff, Pinkerton, 9News, or any other entity that hired or deployed Dolloff as an unlicensed security guard?

*

Tyler’s response:

Hello Michelle,

Thank you for your inquiry. As part of conducting a thorough investigation into this incident, Mr. Wright was one of more than two dozen witnesses – including members of law enforcement – who were interviewed or from whom written statements were taken. The actions of Mr. Keltner, just before he was shot, were very threatening. Mr. Keltner slapped Mr. Dolloff in the face while holding a can of bear spray and made comments that clearly indicated his intention was to cause injury, or worse. Under Colorado law, a person has an affirmative right to use deadly force in self-defense or in defense of others if that person reasonably thinks using less force is insufficient and reasonably believes he or someone else faces an immediate threat of being seriously hurt or killed. There is no duty to retreat under our state law. In line with our ethical obligations, we cannot overcome the legal justifications of self-defense and defense of others and are unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which is why we will ask the court to dismiss this case.

I suggest you contact the Denver City Attorney’s Office for help regarding the Tweets included in the Colorado Peak Politics article you sent. Our office will not pursue any additional charges.

Regards,
Carolyn

*

My reply:

Thanks. You missed my deadline, but I will update my website article to include your partial response.

I await your responses to these questions:

3) Why hasn’t the DA’s office answered Wright’s phone calls the past week?
4) Will HALO camera video from the day of the murder be made available to the press and public?

Moreover, with regard to your incomplete narrative about Mr. Keltner, you omit any reference to the menacing presence of Jeremiah Elliott, who threatened and harassed multiple peaceful attendees of the Patriot Muster rally (including making provocative racist and sexist comments and initiating physical confrontation) throughout the day — and who followed and shouted at Mr. Keltner and others while 9News Producer Zack Newman and fraudulent “security guard” Matthew Dolloff trailed Elliott.

Did your office interview any of the witnesses or victims of Elliott’s harassment and stalking? How many and which ones?
Were Newman and Dolloff questioned about their relationship with Elliott?
Did your office seek any and all communications between 9News, Dolloff, and Elliott before, during, and after the rally?
Did your office obtain any and all video shot by 9News of Elliott’s activities prior to and at the rally?

Best,
Michelle

Michelle Malkin’s email address is [email protected]

 
Hide 34 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. you can’t hold a “Back the Blue” rally downtown in Civic Center Park without getting ambushed and beaten bloody while cops stand by and do nothing.

    I love it. Maybe you need to rethink who you are backing. Cops are nothing but the enforcers for the elites. They are not your friends and don’t give a shit about citizens.

  2. Lee Keltner is a martyred victim of political homicide. So is Aaron Danielson in Portland. Add political prisoners like James Fields. And suicides like Jake Gardner and Matt Perna.

    Antifa is protected and supported by local, state and federal law enforcement, including the same FBI whose agents and informants were involved in almost 24,000 crimes between pre-George Floyd 2011-2014.

    https://thecrimereport.org/2021/11/30/fbi-informants-authorized-to-commit-22800-crimes-in-decade-report/

    And they’re ramping up, not down.

    Understand the risks involved in public protests and conduct yourselves accordingly.

    One big lesson here is that the 2A movement needs to focus more more on the right to actually use your guns in self-defense rather than merely buying them. See the McMichaels – also political prisoners.

    • Agree: Bro43rd, Mr. Grey
  3. This could have been delivered to a grand jury.

    Colorado State Constitution gives way too much discretion to the politician, lawyer-DA in these sorts of criminal cases. Article 2 §8 allows felony prosecution without a formal indictment (i.e. by “information”). §23 even gives the lawyer-dominated legislature the power to abolish the state’s GJ system altogether. That really stinks.

    I’m tempted to look for the minutes from the constitutional convention (1876). I have a feeling that §23 (power to abolish GJ) was snuck-in by the lawyer caucus at the last second, i.e. after all the civil libertarians had gone home.

    • Replies: @Exile
    @Abolish_public_education

    Denver has always been a carpetbagger's haven and imperial bridgehead into the West - a stain on the pioneer spirit.

    And Colorado's modern libertarianism and conservatism, fading fast though it is, serves the Empire well by hog-tying Coloradans to a rigged electoral process and black-letter fealty to magic paper rules that their enemies respect only when it serves them.

    You can't counter bad government with limited government activism. Colorado's government needs replaced, not merely trimmed, two-party system and all.

    Pioneers and settlers understood collective action, Hollywood myths aside.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education

  4. The only thing city, state and most county police serve is their own tax payer funded pension.

    “Back the Blue” is built on a lie. The police do not protect anyone. They collect taxes at gun point in the form of arbitrary traffic laws (designed for revenue, not for actually managing traffic efficiently).

  5. Overeducated radical leftist liberal citizens of Denver voted for this madness. Hope they enjoy being the victims of repeat offenders due to “bail reform.”

  6. @Abolish_public_education
    This could have been delivered to a grand jury.

    Colorado State Constitution gives way too much discretion to the politician, lawyer-DA in these sorts of criminal cases. Article 2 §8 allows felony prosecution without a formal indictment (i.e. by "information"). §23 even gives the lawyer-dominated legislature the power to abolish the state's GJ system altogether. That really stinks.

    I'm tempted to look for the minutes from the constitutional convention (1876). I have a feeling that §23 (power to abolish GJ) was snuck-in by the lawyer caucus at the last second, i.e. after all the civil libertarians had gone home.

    Replies: @Exile

    Denver has always been a carpetbagger’s haven and imperial bridgehead into the West – a stain on the pioneer spirit.

    And Colorado’s modern libertarianism and conservatism, fading fast though it is, serves the Empire well by hog-tying Coloradans to a rigged electoral process and black-letter fealty to magic paper rules that their enemies respect only when it serves them.

    You can’t counter bad government with limited government activism. Colorado’s government needs replaced, not merely trimmed, two-party system and all.

    Pioneers and settlers understood collective action, Hollywood myths aside.

    • Agree: Biff
    • Replies: @Abolish_public_education
    @Exile

    You can’t counter bad government with limited government activism.

    Government is always bad. Since we're stuck with [a necessary evil], the least sucky alternative is to make it as small as possible, and thereby minimize the suck.

    Replies: @Exile

  7. I grew up north of Denver, and my only question is how can such a beautiful place as Colorado get so fucked up in such a hurry?

    • Replies: @Not Chicken Little
    @Biff

    I was lucky enough to spend 4 years in Colorado, 1996-1999, along the Front Range and also in the mountains. It was deteriorating even then but nowhere near as bad as it is now. The left destroys everything they touch.

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Biff

    The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care) from 2010 is supposed to explain it. Don't know if it covers the huge amounts of outside money that's played a roal, Bloomberg for gun control, with less than complete success but no long term costs, you'd also want to check to see if Soros installed the Secretary of State (runs elections) and of course this DA.

    Not that any of us think this will matter in the foreseeable future, but Federal laws against "violating the civil rights" of someone where that results in death have no statute of limitations.

  8. Matthew Dolloff shares a lot in common with Lt. Michael Leroy Byrd of the Capitol Police, and Michael Reinoehl, the murderer of Patriot Prayer demonstrator Aaron Danielson.

    All were quick to use deadly force on ideological foes. With hate in their hearts, they drew their pistols not to warn or deter, but to kill, knowing full well they weren’t in any life-threatening danger. They pulled the trigger for political reasons, to send the message, “I hate your type”.

    Only Michael Reinoehl got served justice.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  9. @Biff
    I grew up north of Denver, and my only question is how can such a beautiful place as Colorado get so fucked up in such a hurry?

    Replies: @Not Chicken Little, @That Would Be Telling

    I was lucky enough to spend 4 years in Colorado, 1996-1999, along the Front Range and also in the mountains. It was deteriorating even then but nowhere near as bad as it is now. The left destroys everything they touch.

  10. @Exile
    @Abolish_public_education

    Denver has always been a carpetbagger's haven and imperial bridgehead into the West - a stain on the pioneer spirit.

    And Colorado's modern libertarianism and conservatism, fading fast though it is, serves the Empire well by hog-tying Coloradans to a rigged electoral process and black-letter fealty to magic paper rules that their enemies respect only when it serves them.

    You can't counter bad government with limited government activism. Colorado's government needs replaced, not merely trimmed, two-party system and all.

    Pioneers and settlers understood collective action, Hollywood myths aside.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education

    You can’t counter bad government with limited government activism.

    Government is always bad. Since we’re stuck with [a necessary evil], the least sucky alternative is to make it as small as possible, and thereby minimize the suck.

    • Replies: @Exile
    @Abolish_public_education

    And in return you'll get corporations controlling your life in ways your limited government can't.

    And you won't have a government empowered to stop them (see Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, PayPal, banks, insurance companies vis a vis gun manufacturers, etc...).

    People only believe government is evil because they are governed by evil people. You need good government, not limited government.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  11. Must begin by acknowledging the exceptional quality of Mrs. Malkin’s piece this week putting those responsible for pursuing justice in Mr. Keltner’s case in an apparently unanswerable bind. As well the comments section so far seems commendably civil and intelligent.

    Biff asks how “such a beautiful place as Colorado…?” As well it could be asked about “America the beautiful”. Well, the foundational germ of this country was the landing on Plymouth Rock four centuries ago by folks from southeastern England seeking God, in contrast to the landings in the Western Hemisphere before and after, from Jamestown to the Rio de la Plata, of Europeans seeking gold. The manifold blessings, spiritual and material, this country has enjoyed since, have flowed from that initial commitment.

    But how we have progressively strayed since! The authors of the Declaration and of the Constitution acknowledged man’s inherently sinful nature and provided checks and balances accordingly. But Prof. Woodrow Wilson, later President, believed as did his colleagues that man is basically good, and their philosophy has had a profound influence on this country since. At last the “Christian” social norms have been broadly and openly discarded, and the disintegrative effects are now becoming resoundingly apparent, in Colorado and in the rest of the country. No part of it is immune! Yet no real reversal is possible while we give ourselves over to the myriad of false idols of the present age.

    Simple justice in Mr. Keltner’s case is subverted by apparent idolatrous commitment to contrary ideological constructs all too familiar to Mrs. Malkin’s readers.

  12. @Biff
    I grew up north of Denver, and my only question is how can such a beautiful place as Colorado get so fucked up in such a hurry?

    Replies: @Not Chicken Little, @That Would Be Telling

    The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care) from 2010 is supposed to explain it. Don’t know if it covers the huge amounts of outside money that’s played a roal, Bloomberg for gun control, with less than complete success but no long term costs, you’d also want to check to see if Soros installed the Secretary of State (runs elections) and of course this DA.

    Not that any of us think this will matter in the foreseeable future, but Federal laws against “violating the civil rights” of someone where that results in death have no statute of limitations.

  13. @Abolish_public_education
    @Exile

    You can’t counter bad government with limited government activism.

    Government is always bad. Since we're stuck with [a necessary evil], the least sucky alternative is to make it as small as possible, and thereby minimize the suck.

    Replies: @Exile

    And in return you’ll get corporations controlling your life in ways your limited government can’t.

    And you won’t have a government empowered to stop them (see Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, PayPal, banks, insurance companies vis a vis gun manufacturers, etc…).

    People only believe government is evil because they are governed by evil people. You need good government, not limited government.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Exile


    And in return you’ll get corporations controlling your life in ways your limited government can’t.
     
    Nope. You get BOTH, Exile. Big Biz makes the laws that Big Gov enforces. Both want to squash the little guy.

    Limited government has been proven to work. Take America, circa 1780s through (very arguably) the 1920s.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington, @Exile

  14. One would expect after Kyle Rittenhouse escaped a murder conviction by arguing self-defense even though he was an out of state juvenile who had no reason to carry a military style weapons to a peaceful rally, Ms Malkin would appreciate that the Denver district attorney has a new found respect for those who would claim self defense. The response Ms Malkin received to her questions makes it clear that after a thorough investigation there was overwhelming evidence from which a jury could find self defense. The district attorney also mentioned Colorado’s stand your ground law–there is no duty to retreat. Ms Malkin should also appreciate that the Denver district attorney has also learned from the Trayvon Martin case that a person with a gun can be threatened and justified in using deadly force if the threat comes from a thin teenager who has only his bare hands as weapons. Here the district attorney’s spokes person identified the clear threats to safety. Typically you would expect a conservative like Ms Malkin to praise a district attorney who choses not to prosecute a gun owner who was engaged in self defense.

    I will confuse everyone here and suggest in closing, I agree with Ms Malkin Mr Dolloff should have been prosecuted. Self defense is a legal fiction used by gun owners to engage in what might be called “pre-meditated” self defense. To be convicted of pre-mediated murder one need not know who the victim will be until you actually shoot the gun. Gun owners who carry weapons have engaged in lots of pre-meditation. They bought the gun. They bought bullets. They practiced. They carried a gun. And this is truly diabolical, the gun owners look for a situation where they can claim they acted in “self-defense” so that they can get the thrill of killing someone. Self defense is actually a “pre-framed” situation under the law. The law established a certain set of parameters in which a killer can be let go for “self defense.” The problem is, gun owners look for those situations. That is the case here with the facts described by Ms Malkin. The killer walked around with his gun looking for a situation where he could claim self defense. Better still the victim was a law and order conservative.

    • Troll: beavertales
    • Replies: @beavertales
    @Harry Huntington

    "gun owners look for those situations"

    You cannot, as the basis of your argument, claim to know that all gun owners "seek the thrill of killing someone".

    It's documented and true that this happens. Certainly some people become bouncers or policemen because they want a license to use violence on others. Society is threatened by these people, and must keep them in check with exemplary deterrence.

    But, there are some people who have the 'sheep-dog' mentality, which is the protective instinct. At heart, they are good people who've decided never to be a helpless victim if they chance upon random violence.

    , @Exile
    @Harry Huntington


    Gun owners who carry weapons have engaged in lots of pre-meditation.
     
    Not according to any historic understanding of premeditation in American law.

    "Premeditated self-defense" is about as coherent as "preemptive retaliation."

    You have a promising future in neoconservative foreign policy.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Ummm
    @Harry Huntington

    >even though he was an out of state juvenile
    His father lived in the area

    >who had no reason
    He had a reasonable expectation of violence, having observed the behaviour of the protestors

    >to carry a military style weapons
    So if the rifle had a wooden stock, it would be OK?

    >to a peaceful rally,
    Setting things on fire is peaceful?

    >Self defense is a legal fiction used by gun owners to engage in what might be called “pre-meditated” self defense.
    Woo boy. I can tell that you live a sheltered life and have never had to deal with anyone who wants to actually physically harm you.

    Self defense works in this way. If someone clearly has more capacity to cause you permanent injury than you them, escalating force is reasonable.

    An unarmed, 45kg woman attacking a 120kg man with her fists? He cannot escalate to deadly force.

    An unarmed, 120kg man attacking a 45kg woman with his fists? She can escalate to deadly force.

    Re: Rittenhouse - there were multiple people hostile to him, telling him they intended to kill him.

    If you try to touch a gun that someone else is holding, you indicate your intent to use that deadly force against them.

    Re: Dollof - Keltner wasn't aware Dollof was armed nor presented any deadly or serious bodily threat to him. As Ms. Malkin points out, there were other agitators *on Dollofs side*.

    Replies: @fish

  15. @Exile
    @Abolish_public_education

    And in return you'll get corporations controlling your life in ways your limited government can't.

    And you won't have a government empowered to stop them (see Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, PayPal, banks, insurance companies vis a vis gun manufacturers, etc...).

    People only believe government is evil because they are governed by evil people. You need good government, not limited government.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    And in return you’ll get corporations controlling your life in ways your limited government can’t.

    Nope. You get BOTH, Exile. Big Biz makes the laws that Big Gov enforces. Both want to squash the little guy.

    Limited government has been proven to work. Take America, circa 1780s through (very arguably) the 1920s.

    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You must have read a different American history than the rest of us. By 1930, America was ready to collapse because it was a failed state. There was so much wrong caused often by "limited" government. Recall before being President Lincoln was a railroad lawyer and in the 19th century railroads abused everyone and everything they touched. One of the first big "regulations" passed by Congress involved railroad regulation. Anti-trust was a huge problem which is why we got the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and why Teddy Roosevelt was known for being a trust buster. Banks were largely unregulated--and failed in droves with the Depression. Recall also our "unregulated" government gave us Jim Crow laws. There were few labor laws, and business felt they could work children 12 hours a day and work labor 6 days a week at less than a living wage because if labor died, they would just import more. Recall company towns? Recall Lincoln Steffens "Shame of the Cities." Recall Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Cities were wretched. Meat packing was wretched. You should read about the development of "white" food. Traveling sales people who did not know local restaurants, and there were no chain restaurants, preferred things like a fried egg or white toast because you could look at the food and see bugs or foreign objects. A thick brown gravy hides many bad things. One of the reasons that the Fred Harvey restaurant chain grew up nationally in rail road stations was because Fred Harvey promised uniform good and quality. 1930s government regulation straightened the US out. The 1980s Reagan revolution was about undoing the sensible regulation passed in the first 70 years of the 29th century. Today we are a mess because of Republican de-regulation. Income inequality is greater than in the 1920s. Racism is worse than under Jim Crow. Anti-trust laws are ignored. Oil companies are the evil of the day--plainly restricting production to jack up prices. One could go on and on. The US will not improve until it taxes wealth (steeply) and breaks up concentrations of money that allow the rich to prevent government from fixing problems.

    , @Exile
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Governments before the modern era were functionally limited by logistics more than any magic paper philosophically-principled restraint. A king, president or governor physically couldn't micro-manage the citizenry as they can in the managerial state - nor could a CEO.

    The Civil War era marked both the philosophical and physical end of limited government in the United States. The war destroyed the reality of republicanism, state-by-state identity and sovereignty and the final settlement of the West led to the carpetbagging second-handers coming to bureaucratize and exploit the efforts of the pioneer settlers - the start of the consolidation and looting phases that always follow expansion. Technological and social "advances" made social engineering and manipulation much more fine-grained.

    The closest thing you'll get to limited government in the modern "panopticon" era (to riff off Mark Steyn's "America" books) is Switzerland - where it works only because you have a racially and culturally coherent White Euro population much smaller than our 400 million within a state-sized territory, reinforced by centuries of tradition without civil war. And their limits are imposed more by self-restraint and good manners than any commitment to John Locke or Athenian Greece.

    America has to Balkanize and the previous 50-state borders no longer reflect the distribution of people who can reasonably be expected to live together. Like post-Versailles borders in Africa and the ME, they are lines on a map drawn without regard for the fact that they demand unity and democracy between hostile tribes that hate each other.

    And those states will have to govern with powers and principles much more authoritarian than Jacksonian democracy.

    That republic was a noble (if impractical) idea, but as Ben Franklin warned, we couldn't keep it.

  16. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Exile


    And in return you’ll get corporations controlling your life in ways your limited government can’t.
     
    Nope. You get BOTH, Exile. Big Biz makes the laws that Big Gov enforces. Both want to squash the little guy.

    Limited government has been proven to work. Take America, circa 1780s through (very arguably) the 1920s.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington, @Exile

    You must have read a different American history than the rest of us. By 1930, America was ready to collapse because it was a failed state. There was so much wrong caused often by “limited” government. Recall before being President Lincoln was a railroad lawyer and in the 19th century railroads abused everyone and everything they touched. One of the first big “regulations” passed by Congress involved railroad regulation. Anti-trust was a huge problem which is why we got the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and why Teddy Roosevelt was known for being a trust buster. Banks were largely unregulated–and failed in droves with the Depression. Recall also our “unregulated” government gave us Jim Crow laws. There were few labor laws, and business felt they could work children 12 hours a day and work labor 6 days a week at less than a living wage because if labor died, they would just import more. Recall company towns? Recall Lincoln Steffens “Shame of the Cities.” Recall Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” Cities were wretched. Meat packing was wretched. You should read about the development of “white” food. Traveling sales people who did not know local restaurants, and there were no chain restaurants, preferred things like a fried egg or white toast because you could look at the food and see bugs or foreign objects. A thick brown gravy hides many bad things. One of the reasons that the Fred Harvey restaurant chain grew up nationally in rail road stations was because Fred Harvey promised uniform good and quality. 1930s government regulation straightened the US out. The 1980s Reagan revolution was about undoing the sensible regulation passed in the first 70 years of the 29th century. Today we are a mess because of Republican de-regulation. Income inequality is greater than in the 1920s. Racism is worse than under Jim Crow. Anti-trust laws are ignored. Oil companies are the evil of the day–plainly restricting production to jack up prices. One could go on and on. The US will not improve until it taxes wealth (steeply) and breaks up concentrations of money that allow the rich to prevent government from fixing problems.

    • Troll: Achmed E. Newman
  17. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Exile


    And in return you’ll get corporations controlling your life in ways your limited government can’t.
     
    Nope. You get BOTH, Exile. Big Biz makes the laws that Big Gov enforces. Both want to squash the little guy.

    Limited government has been proven to work. Take America, circa 1780s through (very arguably) the 1920s.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington, @Exile

    Governments before the modern era were functionally limited by logistics more than any magic paper philosophically-principled restraint. A king, president or governor physically couldn’t micro-manage the citizenry as they can in the managerial state – nor could a CEO.

    The Civil War era marked both the philosophical and physical end of limited government in the United States. The war destroyed the reality of republicanism, state-by-state identity and sovereignty and the final settlement of the West led to the carpetbagging second-handers coming to bureaucratize and exploit the efforts of the pioneer settlers – the start of the consolidation and looting phases that always follow expansion. Technological and social “advances” made social engineering and manipulation much more fine-grained.

    The closest thing you’ll get to limited government in the modern “panopticon” era (to riff off Mark Steyn’s “America” books) is Switzerland – where it works only because you have a racially and culturally coherent White Euro population much smaller than our 400 million within a state-sized territory, reinforced by centuries of tradition without civil war. And their limits are imposed more by self-restraint and good manners than any commitment to John Locke or Athenian Greece.

    America has to Balkanize and the previous 50-state borders no longer reflect the distribution of people who can reasonably be expected to live together. Like post-Versailles borders in Africa and the ME, they are lines on a map drawn without regard for the fact that they demand unity and democracy between hostile tribes that hate each other.

    And those states will have to govern with powers and principles much more authoritarian than Jacksonian democracy.

    That republic was a noble (if impractical) idea, but as Ben Franklin warned, we couldn’t keep it.

  18. @Harry Huntington
    One would expect after Kyle Rittenhouse escaped a murder conviction by arguing self-defense even though he was an out of state juvenile who had no reason to carry a military style weapons to a peaceful rally, Ms Malkin would appreciate that the Denver district attorney has a new found respect for those who would claim self defense. The response Ms Malkin received to her questions makes it clear that after a thorough investigation there was overwhelming evidence from which a jury could find self defense. The district attorney also mentioned Colorado's stand your ground law--there is no duty to retreat. Ms Malkin should also appreciate that the Denver district attorney has also learned from the Trayvon Martin case that a person with a gun can be threatened and justified in using deadly force if the threat comes from a thin teenager who has only his bare hands as weapons. Here the district attorney's spokes person identified the clear threats to safety. Typically you would expect a conservative like Ms Malkin to praise a district attorney who choses not to prosecute a gun owner who was engaged in self defense.

    I will confuse everyone here and suggest in closing, I agree with Ms Malkin Mr Dolloff should have been prosecuted. Self defense is a legal fiction used by gun owners to engage in what might be called "pre-meditated" self defense. To be convicted of pre-mediated murder one need not know who the victim will be until you actually shoot the gun. Gun owners who carry weapons have engaged in lots of pre-meditation. They bought the gun. They bought bullets. They practiced. They carried a gun. And this is truly diabolical, the gun owners look for a situation where they can claim they acted in "self-defense" so that they can get the thrill of killing someone. Self defense is actually a "pre-framed" situation under the law. The law established a certain set of parameters in which a killer can be let go for "self defense." The problem is, gun owners look for those situations. That is the case here with the facts described by Ms Malkin. The killer walked around with his gun looking for a situation where he could claim self defense. Better still the victim was a law and order conservative.

    Replies: @beavertales, @Exile, @Ummm

    “gun owners look for those situations”

    You cannot, as the basis of your argument, claim to know that all gun owners “seek the thrill of killing someone”.

    It’s documented and true that this happens. Certainly some people become bouncers or policemen because they want a license to use violence on others. Society is threatened by these people, and must keep them in check with exemplary deterrence.

    But, there are some people who have the ‘sheep-dog’ mentality, which is the protective instinct. At heart, they are good people who’ve decided never to be a helpless victim if they chance upon random violence.

  19. @Harry Huntington
    One would expect after Kyle Rittenhouse escaped a murder conviction by arguing self-defense even though he was an out of state juvenile who had no reason to carry a military style weapons to a peaceful rally, Ms Malkin would appreciate that the Denver district attorney has a new found respect for those who would claim self defense. The response Ms Malkin received to her questions makes it clear that after a thorough investigation there was overwhelming evidence from which a jury could find self defense. The district attorney also mentioned Colorado's stand your ground law--there is no duty to retreat. Ms Malkin should also appreciate that the Denver district attorney has also learned from the Trayvon Martin case that a person with a gun can be threatened and justified in using deadly force if the threat comes from a thin teenager who has only his bare hands as weapons. Here the district attorney's spokes person identified the clear threats to safety. Typically you would expect a conservative like Ms Malkin to praise a district attorney who choses not to prosecute a gun owner who was engaged in self defense.

    I will confuse everyone here and suggest in closing, I agree with Ms Malkin Mr Dolloff should have been prosecuted. Self defense is a legal fiction used by gun owners to engage in what might be called "pre-meditated" self defense. To be convicted of pre-mediated murder one need not know who the victim will be until you actually shoot the gun. Gun owners who carry weapons have engaged in lots of pre-meditation. They bought the gun. They bought bullets. They practiced. They carried a gun. And this is truly diabolical, the gun owners look for a situation where they can claim they acted in "self-defense" so that they can get the thrill of killing someone. Self defense is actually a "pre-framed" situation under the law. The law established a certain set of parameters in which a killer can be let go for "self defense." The problem is, gun owners look for those situations. That is the case here with the facts described by Ms Malkin. The killer walked around with his gun looking for a situation where he could claim self defense. Better still the victim was a law and order conservative.

    Replies: @beavertales, @Exile, @Ummm

    Gun owners who carry weapons have engaged in lots of pre-meditation.

    Not according to any historic understanding of premeditation in American law.

    “Premeditated self-defense” is about as coherent as “preemptive retaliation.”

    You have a promising future in neoconservative foreign policy.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Harry Huntington
    @Exile

    I guess my fundamental problem with any "self defense" using a gun is that a gun is never a defensive weapon. If you shoot second you die (unless the other guy missed). Thus to use a gun in self defense you must make the mental calculation that the other guy will kill you, then on that basis shoot.

    Hence "pre-meditated." Those calculations are of course not in reality calculations at all, but an imposition of what I might call a "threat screen" on a person who you think you can sell to a jury as someone who threatened you. It is just like a little kid saying "but mom I had to."

    Except with "self defense" the law provides clear pre-approved "I had to's" that gun lovers can use to head out and get a kill. Human hunting season has no "season" and no "limit" beyond what you can find and shoot within the limits of "self defense."

    Replies: @Exile

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Exile

    Mr "Huntington" is taking your own unlimited-government position to its logical conclusion. If you believe a citizen has a right to carry for self-defense (I do), you're applying the same libertarian principle you mock elsewhere.

    How is the state supposed to control things if it can't control things? I don't like urban gun laws, but that's what the people voted for. Democracy in action.

    Replies: @Exile

  20. @Exile
    @Harry Huntington


    Gun owners who carry weapons have engaged in lots of pre-meditation.
     
    Not according to any historic understanding of premeditation in American law.

    "Premeditated self-defense" is about as coherent as "preemptive retaliation."

    You have a promising future in neoconservative foreign policy.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington, @Reg Cæsar

    I guess my fundamental problem with any “self defense” using a gun is that a gun is never a defensive weapon. If you shoot second you die (unless the other guy missed). Thus to use a gun in self defense you must make the mental calculation that the other guy will kill you, then on that basis shoot.

    Hence “pre-meditated.” Those calculations are of course not in reality calculations at all, but an imposition of what I might call a “threat screen” on a person who you think you can sell to a jury as someone who threatened you. It is just like a little kid saying “but mom I had to.”

    Except with “self defense” the law provides clear pre-approved “I had to’s” that gun lovers can use to head out and get a kill. Human hunting season has no “season” and no “limit” beyond what you can find and shoot within the limits of “self defense.”

    • Replies: @Exile
    @Harry Huntington

    So armor is always defensive but weapons never are? Because weapons are bad and mean you want to hurt people, right?

    Try reading some of the actual legal authorities on self-defense if you want to address the subject in good faith. At best you're grossly oversimplifying the issue.

    But your comment as-is serves to show why "self-defense" is a flawed argument for gun rights - on a par with the sophistry we saw in the Rittenhouse and McMichaels trials (e.g. Arbery trying to reverse the attacker/defender roles). Self-defense is being eroded by Talmudic bad faith arguments about who the attacker or defender is from frame to frame of the Tik-Tok video.

    A more flexible and useful concept is the idea of maintaining order - elevating every citizen's right to employ force to enforce the law and protect their community - especially relevant now that cops are no longer doing their jobs effectively in more and more jurisdictions.

    Beef up "citizens arrest" rights and eliminate absurd concepts like duty to retreat.

    Your use of phrases like "gun lovers" shows your liberal priors on this issue. You clearly judge gun owners by the Dick Wolfe Law and Order standard (bible thumping violent lunatics).

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  21. @Harry Huntington
    @Exile

    I guess my fundamental problem with any "self defense" using a gun is that a gun is never a defensive weapon. If you shoot second you die (unless the other guy missed). Thus to use a gun in self defense you must make the mental calculation that the other guy will kill you, then on that basis shoot.

    Hence "pre-meditated." Those calculations are of course not in reality calculations at all, but an imposition of what I might call a "threat screen" on a person who you think you can sell to a jury as someone who threatened you. It is just like a little kid saying "but mom I had to."

    Except with "self defense" the law provides clear pre-approved "I had to's" that gun lovers can use to head out and get a kill. Human hunting season has no "season" and no "limit" beyond what you can find and shoot within the limits of "self defense."

    Replies: @Exile

    So armor is always defensive but weapons never are? Because weapons are bad and mean you want to hurt people, right?

    Try reading some of the actual legal authorities on self-defense if you want to address the subject in good faith. At best you’re grossly oversimplifying the issue.

    But your comment as-is serves to show why “self-defense” is a flawed argument for gun rights – on a par with the sophistry we saw in the Rittenhouse and McMichaels trials (e.g. Arbery trying to reverse the attacker/defender roles). Self-defense is being eroded by Talmudic bad faith arguments about who the attacker or defender is from frame to frame of the Tik-Tok video.

    A more flexible and useful concept is the idea of maintaining order – elevating every citizen’s right to employ force to enforce the law and protect their community – especially relevant now that cops are no longer doing their jobs effectively in more and more jurisdictions.

    Beef up “citizens arrest” rights and eliminate absurd concepts like duty to retreat.

    Your use of phrases like “gun lovers” shows your liberal priors on this issue. You clearly judge gun owners by the Dick Wolfe Law and Order standard (bible thumping violent lunatics).

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Exile


    Your use of phrases like “gun lovers” shows your liberal priors on this issue
     
    He is in no meaningful way a "liberal". He takes an authoritarian position.
  22. I knew this would happen since radical left wing prosecutors like Beth McCann want to send a message to the right of center political opposition contrary to her public statements that evidence was lacking for second degree murder and that Dollof could reasonably claim self defense. McCann is basically endorsing antifa’s battle cry that harming and even killing anyone on the right is “self defense”.

    Radical leftist Dollof was not standing his ground in any way. Per the video both he and Elliot continued to pursue and harass Lee Keltner as he was leaving the event, so neither were innocent bystanders. At some point Keltner decided he’d had enough and pepper sprayed Dollof who pulled his gun and just blew Keltner away. Pepper spray is not a deadly weapon and only temporarily incapacitates, so Dollof had no grounds to use deadly force.

    If states refuse to deal with hyperpartisan DA’s like McCann then if a Republican president wins in 2024 be better have the balls to destroy these people with civil rights laws and violations of 14th amendment protections. It’s time the right weaponizes civil rights statutes against the left just as the left has against us for these many decades.

    • Replies: @Exile
    @KenH

    "The next Republican better have the balls to...." will be written on America's tombstone.

    I remember saying this about Bill Clinton's agenda. Look where we are now.

    Voting GOP harder will not save you. If there is any hope for American politics under the present structure, you need third and fourth parties to even have a shot.

    Replies: @KenH

    , @Harry Huntington
    @KenH

    Given the results in the Trayvon Martin case and the Kyle Rittenhouse case BLM is correct about the state of the law. In the Rittenhouse case, as the law was applied, it would appear if Rittenhouse had been murdered, the peaceful BLM protestors could have won on self - defense. Same with Martin, if Martin had been the murderer, he could have won on self-defense.

    There are at least two ways to "fix" the problem.

    Option 1--make all shootings a civil rights violation punishable by life in prison with no parole. Allow no "defenses" other than the shooter was law enforcement. Allow "self defense" only as a sentence reduction. To plead "self defense" the shooter would have to (1) admit guilt to the crime but (2) argue the shooting was justified. If the jury agrees, sentence would be reduced to 20 years (with no parole, early release or good time).

    Option 2--allow "self defense" but only if the other person has a gun and shoots first. That would eliminate much of the ambiguity.

    I still contend as I did above that a person using a gun can never actually engage in self defense because they "succeed" only if they kill first. Thus the always speculate about what bad things the other guy might do.

    Here, because the shooter had been pepper sprayed, he had reason to fear for his life and shoot back. Of course, to me that is still not self defense. He did not know that the pepper sprayer would not stop.

  23. @KenH
    I knew this would happen since radical left wing prosecutors like Beth McCann want to send a message to the right of center political opposition contrary to her public statements that evidence was lacking for second degree murder and that Dollof could reasonably claim self defense. McCann is basically endorsing antifa's battle cry that harming and even killing anyone on the right is "self defense".

    Radical leftist Dollof was not standing his ground in any way. Per the video both he and Elliot continued to pursue and harass Lee Keltner as he was leaving the event, so neither were innocent bystanders. At some point Keltner decided he'd had enough and pepper sprayed Dollof who pulled his gun and just blew Keltner away. Pepper spray is not a deadly weapon and only temporarily incapacitates, so Dollof had no grounds to use deadly force.

    If states refuse to deal with hyperpartisan DA's like McCann then if a Republican president wins in 2024 be better have the balls to destroy these people with civil rights laws and violations of 14th amendment protections. It's time the right weaponizes civil rights statutes against the left just as the left has against us for these many decades.

    Replies: @Exile, @Harry Huntington

    “The next Republican better have the balls to….” will be written on America’s tombstone.

    I remember saying this about Bill Clinton’s agenda. Look where we are now.

    Voting GOP harder will not save you. If there is any hope for American politics under the present structure, you need third and fourth parties to even have a shot.

    • Replies: @KenH
    @Exile


    Voting GOP harder will not save you. If there is any hope for American politics under the present structure, you need third and fourth parties to even have a shot.
     
    I know that as much more more than you or anyone and have no illusions that the GOP can or will save us. They've proven to be a phony opposition because every time they have political power they refuse wield it on behalf of their voters.

    But if the Republicans were a real opposition then they would weaponize civil rights laws against the radical left. Not only must far left wing D.A.'s like McCann be crushed but all black on white violence must be treated as motivated by anti-white racism and a civil rights violation regardless of the facts.

    The facts never matter to the political left so they shouldn't matter anymore to the political right.
  24. @KenH
    I knew this would happen since radical left wing prosecutors like Beth McCann want to send a message to the right of center political opposition contrary to her public statements that evidence was lacking for second degree murder and that Dollof could reasonably claim self defense. McCann is basically endorsing antifa's battle cry that harming and even killing anyone on the right is "self defense".

    Radical leftist Dollof was not standing his ground in any way. Per the video both he and Elliot continued to pursue and harass Lee Keltner as he was leaving the event, so neither were innocent bystanders. At some point Keltner decided he'd had enough and pepper sprayed Dollof who pulled his gun and just blew Keltner away. Pepper spray is not a deadly weapon and only temporarily incapacitates, so Dollof had no grounds to use deadly force.

    If states refuse to deal with hyperpartisan DA's like McCann then if a Republican president wins in 2024 be better have the balls to destroy these people with civil rights laws and violations of 14th amendment protections. It's time the right weaponizes civil rights statutes against the left just as the left has against us for these many decades.

    Replies: @Exile, @Harry Huntington

    Given the results in the Trayvon Martin case and the Kyle Rittenhouse case BLM is correct about the state of the law. In the Rittenhouse case, as the law was applied, it would appear if Rittenhouse had been murdered, the peaceful BLM protestors could have won on self – defense. Same with Martin, if Martin had been the murderer, he could have won on self-defense.

    There are at least two ways to “fix” the problem.

    Option 1–make all shootings a civil rights violation punishable by life in prison with no parole. Allow no “defenses” other than the shooter was law enforcement. Allow “self defense” only as a sentence reduction. To plead “self defense” the shooter would have to (1) admit guilt to the crime but (2) argue the shooting was justified. If the jury agrees, sentence would be reduced to 20 years (with no parole, early release or good time).

    Option 2–allow “self defense” but only if the other person has a gun and shoots first. That would eliminate much of the ambiguity.

    I still contend as I did above that a person using a gun can never actually engage in self defense because they “succeed” only if they kill first. Thus the always speculate about what bad things the other guy might do.

    Here, because the shooter had been pepper sprayed, he had reason to fear for his life and shoot back. Of course, to me that is still not self defense. He did not know that the pepper sprayer would not stop.

  25. @Exile
    @KenH

    "The next Republican better have the balls to...." will be written on America's tombstone.

    I remember saying this about Bill Clinton's agenda. Look where we are now.

    Voting GOP harder will not save you. If there is any hope for American politics under the present structure, you need third and fourth parties to even have a shot.

    Replies: @KenH

    Voting GOP harder will not save you. If there is any hope for American politics under the present structure, you need third and fourth parties to even have a shot.

    I know that as much more more than you or anyone and have no illusions that the GOP can or will save us. They’ve proven to be a phony opposition because every time they have political power they refuse wield it on behalf of their voters.

    But if the Republicans were a real opposition then they would weaponize civil rights laws against the radical left. Not only must far left wing D.A.’s like McCann be crushed but all black on white violence must be treated as motivated by anti-white racism and a civil rights violation regardless of the facts.

    The facts never matter to the political left so they shouldn’t matter anymore to the political right.

    • Agree: Exile
  26. @Exile
    @Harry Huntington


    Gun owners who carry weapons have engaged in lots of pre-meditation.
     
    Not according to any historic understanding of premeditation in American law.

    "Premeditated self-defense" is about as coherent as "preemptive retaliation."

    You have a promising future in neoconservative foreign policy.

    Replies: @Harry Huntington, @Reg Cæsar

    Mr “Huntington” is taking your own unlimited-government position to its logical conclusion. If you believe a citizen has a right to carry for self-defense (I do), you’re applying the same libertarian principle you mock elsewhere.

    How is the state supposed to control things if it can’t control things? I don’t like urban gun laws, but that’s what the people voted for. Democracy in action.

    • Replies: @Exile
    @Reg Cæsar

    My idea of government is what exists in every group of people de facto, regardless of whether you want to name it or acknowledge it.

    No government is "unlimited" and the only thing that limits government is the willingness of people to obey its rules. Both of these things are true.

    Just because government always exists in any group and always exerts some kind of control doesn't mean that it can or should do X thing. Those are all arguments over policy - is it a good or bad idea, net positive or net negative? Will people accept this as a legitimate policy?

    I know I said "ask me anything about libertarianism" upthread but miss me with these stoner-dorm-room teenage level arguments please.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  27. @Exile
    @Harry Huntington

    So armor is always defensive but weapons never are? Because weapons are bad and mean you want to hurt people, right?

    Try reading some of the actual legal authorities on self-defense if you want to address the subject in good faith. At best you're grossly oversimplifying the issue.

    But your comment as-is serves to show why "self-defense" is a flawed argument for gun rights - on a par with the sophistry we saw in the Rittenhouse and McMichaels trials (e.g. Arbery trying to reverse the attacker/defender roles). Self-defense is being eroded by Talmudic bad faith arguments about who the attacker or defender is from frame to frame of the Tik-Tok video.

    A more flexible and useful concept is the idea of maintaining order - elevating every citizen's right to employ force to enforce the law and protect their community - especially relevant now that cops are no longer doing their jobs effectively in more and more jurisdictions.

    Beef up "citizens arrest" rights and eliminate absurd concepts like duty to retreat.

    Your use of phrases like "gun lovers" shows your liberal priors on this issue. You clearly judge gun owners by the Dick Wolfe Law and Order standard (bible thumping violent lunatics).

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Your use of phrases like “gun lovers” shows your liberal priors on this issue

    He is in no meaningful way a “liberal”. He takes an authoritarian position.

  28. @Reg Cæsar
    @Exile

    Mr "Huntington" is taking your own unlimited-government position to its logical conclusion. If you believe a citizen has a right to carry for self-defense (I do), you're applying the same libertarian principle you mock elsewhere.

    How is the state supposed to control things if it can't control things? I don't like urban gun laws, but that's what the people voted for. Democracy in action.

    Replies: @Exile

    My idea of government is what exists in every group of people de facto, regardless of whether you want to name it or acknowledge it.

    No government is “unlimited” and the only thing that limits government is the willingness of people to obey its rules. Both of these things are true.

    Just because government always exists in any group and always exerts some kind of control doesn’t mean that it can or should do X thing. Those are all arguments over policy – is it a good or bad idea, net positive or net negative? Will people accept this as a legitimate policy?

    I know I said “ask me anything about libertarianism” upthread but miss me with these stoner-dorm-room teenage level arguments please.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Exile

    I'm not arguing for "libertarianism" but for liberty. You seem to think it optional. Sort of like Congress when they took her off the dime.


    Will people accept this as a legitimate policy?
     
    In many metros, half the people think gun prohibition is a necessity and half think it an atrocity.

    Replies: @Exile

  29. @Exile
    @Reg Cæsar

    My idea of government is what exists in every group of people de facto, regardless of whether you want to name it or acknowledge it.

    No government is "unlimited" and the only thing that limits government is the willingness of people to obey its rules. Both of these things are true.

    Just because government always exists in any group and always exerts some kind of control doesn't mean that it can or should do X thing. Those are all arguments over policy - is it a good or bad idea, net positive or net negative? Will people accept this as a legitimate policy?

    I know I said "ask me anything about libertarianism" upthread but miss me with these stoner-dorm-room teenage level arguments please.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I’m not arguing for “libertarianism” but for liberty. You seem to think it optional. Sort of like Congress when they took her off the dime.

    Will people accept this as a legitimate policy?

    In many metros, half the people think gun prohibition is a necessity and half think it an atrocity.

    • Replies: @Exile
    @Reg Cæsar

    "I'm arguing for liberty" is cheap easy rhetoric.

    The reality is that people who believe in the right to carry can't co-exist with those who think it's an "atrocity." They have to separate. The libertarian fiction that a magic paper constitution can impose garden-variety "tyranny of the minority" b/c "our principles" has been entirely destroyed by what's happened in modern America.

    The shitlibs in these cities won't let you have your principles. You can either fight them or separate and form your own communities. I don't find these cities worth fighting for - I'll take the latter.

    Lee Keltner died fighting on ground not worth standing. Civic nationalism and rule of law are dead. America's government is not going to accept your liberty, limitations or principles. Deal with that reality.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  30. @Reg Cæsar
    @Exile

    I'm not arguing for "libertarianism" but for liberty. You seem to think it optional. Sort of like Congress when they took her off the dime.


    Will people accept this as a legitimate policy?
     
    In many metros, half the people think gun prohibition is a necessity and half think it an atrocity.

    Replies: @Exile

    “I’m arguing for liberty” is cheap easy rhetoric.

    The reality is that people who believe in the right to carry can’t co-exist with those who think it’s an “atrocity.” They have to separate. The libertarian fiction that a magic paper constitution can impose garden-variety “tyranny of the minority” b/c “our principles” has been entirely destroyed by what’s happened in modern America.

    The shitlibs in these cities won’t let you have your principles. You can either fight them or separate and form your own communities. I don’t find these cities worth fighting for – I’ll take the latter.

    Lee Keltner died fighting on ground not worth standing. Civic nationalism and rule of law are dead. America’s government is not going to accept your liberty, limitations or principles. Deal with that reality.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Exile


    The libertarian fiction that a magic paper constitution can impose garden-variety “tyranny of the minority”
     
    Because the other side rejects it. As John Derbyshire said, only Anglo-Saxons can do democracy, and liberty is even harder. But just because our neighbors can't handle liberty doesn't mean that we can't keep our own. Indeed, the only victories the right has seen in the past half-century have been the rollback of confiscatory tax rates and the expansion of the rights of gun possession.

    As for confiscatory taxes, how are you going to destroy the Soros fortune without doing the same to the Trump fortune? Or is the latter to be dismissed as roadkill? There is that bill-of-attainder bit in the Constitution, after all.

    Freedom of association (a libertarian concept if there ever was one) got its bad contemporary odor because it was suddenly embraced by those who had been violating it for 300 years.

    Your approach is seen on Unz.com all the time-- endless replies, attacking one rightist view without giving specifics of an alternative, condescension and insult, etc. Those are red flags suggesting a Corvine sockpuppet.

    Replies: @Exile

  31. @Exile
    @Reg Cæsar

    "I'm arguing for liberty" is cheap easy rhetoric.

    The reality is that people who believe in the right to carry can't co-exist with those who think it's an "atrocity." They have to separate. The libertarian fiction that a magic paper constitution can impose garden-variety "tyranny of the minority" b/c "our principles" has been entirely destroyed by what's happened in modern America.

    The shitlibs in these cities won't let you have your principles. You can either fight them or separate and form your own communities. I don't find these cities worth fighting for - I'll take the latter.

    Lee Keltner died fighting on ground not worth standing. Civic nationalism and rule of law are dead. America's government is not going to accept your liberty, limitations or principles. Deal with that reality.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The libertarian fiction that a magic paper constitution can impose garden-variety “tyranny of the minority”

    Because the other side rejects it. As John Derbyshire said, only Anglo-Saxons can do democracy, and liberty is even harder. But just because our neighbors can’t handle liberty doesn’t mean that we can’t keep our own. Indeed, the only victories the right has seen in the past half-century have been the rollback of confiscatory tax rates and the expansion of the rights of gun possession.

    As for confiscatory taxes, how are you going to destroy the Soros fortune without doing the same to the Trump fortune? Or is the latter to be dismissed as roadkill? There is that bill-of-attainder bit in the Constitution, after all.

    Freedom of association (a libertarian concept if there ever was one) got its bad contemporary odor because it was suddenly embraced by those who had been violating it for 300 years.

    Your approach is seen on Unz.com all the time– endless replies, attacking one rightist view without giving specifics of an alternative, condescension and insult, etc. Those are red flags suggesting a Corvine sockpuppet.

    • Replies: @Exile
    @Reg Cæsar

    Your approach is seen on Unz all the time - talking past someone and moving the goalposts furiously.

    You've gish-galloped from 2A to taxes to democracy to what next? What the hell is your point?

  32. @Harry Huntington
    One would expect after Kyle Rittenhouse escaped a murder conviction by arguing self-defense even though he was an out of state juvenile who had no reason to carry a military style weapons to a peaceful rally, Ms Malkin would appreciate that the Denver district attorney has a new found respect for those who would claim self defense. The response Ms Malkin received to her questions makes it clear that after a thorough investigation there was overwhelming evidence from which a jury could find self defense. The district attorney also mentioned Colorado's stand your ground law--there is no duty to retreat. Ms Malkin should also appreciate that the Denver district attorney has also learned from the Trayvon Martin case that a person with a gun can be threatened and justified in using deadly force if the threat comes from a thin teenager who has only his bare hands as weapons. Here the district attorney's spokes person identified the clear threats to safety. Typically you would expect a conservative like Ms Malkin to praise a district attorney who choses not to prosecute a gun owner who was engaged in self defense.

    I will confuse everyone here and suggest in closing, I agree with Ms Malkin Mr Dolloff should have been prosecuted. Self defense is a legal fiction used by gun owners to engage in what might be called "pre-meditated" self defense. To be convicted of pre-mediated murder one need not know who the victim will be until you actually shoot the gun. Gun owners who carry weapons have engaged in lots of pre-meditation. They bought the gun. They bought bullets. They practiced. They carried a gun. And this is truly diabolical, the gun owners look for a situation where they can claim they acted in "self-defense" so that they can get the thrill of killing someone. Self defense is actually a "pre-framed" situation under the law. The law established a certain set of parameters in which a killer can be let go for "self defense." The problem is, gun owners look for those situations. That is the case here with the facts described by Ms Malkin. The killer walked around with his gun looking for a situation where he could claim self defense. Better still the victim was a law and order conservative.

    Replies: @beavertales, @Exile, @Ummm

    >even though he was an out of state juvenile
    His father lived in the area

    >who had no reason
    He had a reasonable expectation of violence, having observed the behaviour of the protestors

    >to carry a military style weapons
    So if the rifle had a wooden stock, it would be OK?

    >to a peaceful rally,
    Setting things on fire is peaceful?

    >Self defense is a legal fiction used by gun owners to engage in what might be called “pre-meditated” self defense.
    Woo boy. I can tell that you live a sheltered life and have never had to deal with anyone who wants to actually physically harm you.

    Self defense works in this way. If someone clearly has more capacity to cause you permanent injury than you them, escalating force is reasonable.

    An unarmed, 45kg woman attacking a 120kg man with her fists? He cannot escalate to deadly force.

    An unarmed, 120kg man attacking a 45kg woman with his fists? She can escalate to deadly force.

    Re: Rittenhouse – there were multiple people hostile to him, telling him they intended to kill him.

    If you try to touch a gun that someone else is holding, you indicate your intent to use that deadly force against them.

    Re: Dollof – Keltner wasn’t aware Dollof was armed nor presented any deadly or serious bodily threat to him. As Ms. Malkin points out, there were other agitators *on Dollofs side*.

    • Replies: @fish
    @Ummm

    That was embarrassing wasn’t it. Nice rebuttal!

  33. @Reg Cæsar
    @Exile


    The libertarian fiction that a magic paper constitution can impose garden-variety “tyranny of the minority”
     
    Because the other side rejects it. As John Derbyshire said, only Anglo-Saxons can do democracy, and liberty is even harder. But just because our neighbors can't handle liberty doesn't mean that we can't keep our own. Indeed, the only victories the right has seen in the past half-century have been the rollback of confiscatory tax rates and the expansion of the rights of gun possession.

    As for confiscatory taxes, how are you going to destroy the Soros fortune without doing the same to the Trump fortune? Or is the latter to be dismissed as roadkill? There is that bill-of-attainder bit in the Constitution, after all.

    Freedom of association (a libertarian concept if there ever was one) got its bad contemporary odor because it was suddenly embraced by those who had been violating it for 300 years.

    Your approach is seen on Unz.com all the time-- endless replies, attacking one rightist view without giving specifics of an alternative, condescension and insult, etc. Those are red flags suggesting a Corvine sockpuppet.

    Replies: @Exile

    Your approach is seen on Unz all the time – talking past someone and moving the goalposts furiously.

    You’ve gish-galloped from 2A to taxes to democracy to what next? What the hell is your point?

  34. @Ummm
    @Harry Huntington

    >even though he was an out of state juvenile
    His father lived in the area

    >who had no reason
    He had a reasonable expectation of violence, having observed the behaviour of the protestors

    >to carry a military style weapons
    So if the rifle had a wooden stock, it would be OK?

    >to a peaceful rally,
    Setting things on fire is peaceful?

    >Self defense is a legal fiction used by gun owners to engage in what might be called “pre-meditated” self defense.
    Woo boy. I can tell that you live a sheltered life and have never had to deal with anyone who wants to actually physically harm you.

    Self defense works in this way. If someone clearly has more capacity to cause you permanent injury than you them, escalating force is reasonable.

    An unarmed, 45kg woman attacking a 120kg man with her fists? He cannot escalate to deadly force.

    An unarmed, 120kg man attacking a 45kg woman with his fists? She can escalate to deadly force.

    Re: Rittenhouse - there were multiple people hostile to him, telling him they intended to kill him.

    If you try to touch a gun that someone else is holding, you indicate your intent to use that deadly force against them.

    Re: Dollof - Keltner wasn't aware Dollof was armed nor presented any deadly or serious bodily threat to him. As Ms. Malkin points out, there were other agitators *on Dollofs side*.

    Replies: @fish

    That was embarrassing wasn’t it. Nice rebuttal!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Michelle Malkin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Hidden History of the 1930s and 1940s