Monday, August 31, 2020

Blaming Trump for violence perpetrated by blm & antifa...

is like a student who refuses to do his homework blaming the teacher for failing!

Make no mistake. Black lives matter and antifa are to blame for their own violence. The local mayors and prosecutors who call off their police and refuse to prosecute are next in line for blame. The state leadership that refuses to step in and do something is next in line for blame. The media and liberals who downplay the violence and demand that it's all "mostly peaceful" are last in line. There is no more blame to go around. 

To blame the President and the Federal government, who are the only ones condemning and offering to actually do something to stop the violence is immature and downright silly. Moreover, many of those who refuses the help of the Federal government are the first ones to point the figure at them in order to cover their own asses. Remember when the left determined that the only reason Portland was in a constant state of riot was because the Feds were there? Obviously that wasn't the case. 

Does anyone "really" believe that the blame for violence lies anywhere other than with those actually responsible for said violence or for those tasked to prevent it?  It's become so kneejerk for people on the left to blame literally "everything" on Trump without any logical reason to do so, that it has sort of become it's own parody. They've literally become the Party of no responsibility. 

Let me make something perfectly clear. You put people who take no responsibility in charge and you will get exactly what you deserve. Nothing but finger pointing. 

The accused murderer of Trump supporter Aaron Danielson was previously arrested...

Man under investigation in fatal shooting after pro-Trump rally allegedly took loaded gun to earlier Portland protest 
On July 5 at one of the demonstrations, Reinoehl was cited at 2:10 a.m. in the 700 block of Southwest Main Street on allegations of possessing a loaded gun in a public place, resisting arrest and interfering with police
He was given a date to appear in court later that month, but the allegations were dropped on July 30 with a “no complaint,” according to court records.

So this is why the Oregon state police walked away from the city of Portland. They kept arresting people, and the prosecutors refused to prosecute anyone. Think about it. Weapons charges, resisting arrest, and interfering with police? These are apparently not serious enough charges for a prosecutor to take them seriously?

Some might be able to understand how people arrested for things like trespassing or even petty vandalism might be allowed to get off without being charged. After all, charge one and you have to literally charge hundreds if not thousands. But gun charges, resisting arrest, and obstruction charges being dropped?

Once you provide this particular person with the idea that he is invincible and immune from prosecution, it makes perfect sense that he would continue to push his boundaries. Are they actually going to put him on trial for murder this time...or just let him back out to kill again?

Make no mistake, this person is dead because prosecutors refused to do their job because of political pressure to bend to the will of blm and antifa. Something that every single day becomes less and less popular with the American public.

When you realize something for the first time....

The versatile actor Christopher Guest 

The unflappable Dr Stone from Few Good Men testifying why the rag was soaked with poison

The confused Nigel Tufnul from Spinal Tab explains why his amp goes to eleven rather than ten

Only 6% of Covid reported deaths actually Covid specific

According to CDC 94% of all reported Covid deaths listed other factors on death certificate

Another story largely ignored by the MSM is some new analysis by the CDC that shows that the vast majority of death certificates that claim Covid-19 as the cause of death, also show other causes as well. In fact the average causes of death listed on a death certificate associated to Covid-19 is 3.6 causes. 

So a person dies from a heart attack, but tests positive for Covid, the death certificate would list heart attack, probably an underlying heart condition or two, and then add Covid to the list. The fact that the actual death was a heart attack or lung failure and would generally be associated with heart or lung disease does not exclude that death from being listed as a Covid-19 death for reporting purposes.

We've known for some time that the vast majority of people who have died from Covid had "pre-existing conditions" or were otherwise immune deficient. What we didn't know is that many of these same people have died from direct causes of those pre-existing conditions, but have been listed as a Covid-19 death.

In terms of people who have caught Covid and simply died from Covid, there are less than 10,000 reported death certificates that only show Covid as the cause of death. That is a remarkable statistic when you take everything into consideration. 

Now none of this is to say that Covid hasn't had a large effect on people. Many of these people with heart or lung conditions may not have passed had it not been for catching Covid. In many cases very sick people with serious heart or lung conditions get to the point where any sort of additional illness (whether it be the seasonal flu or a bad cold bug) will trigger events that lead to death. Many of these Covid deaths (based on the demographics and death certificates) were entirely based on that circumstances and them catching the Covid virus (rather than the flu or another ailment).

This is why there is such a run on nursing home and assisted living community deaths. A vast portion of those people have the very underlying conditions that makes their next major bout with any virus or illness potentially fatal. In 2020, it just happened to be Covid that was the trigger.  

Biden follows blm and antifa script by condemning violence but blaming conservatives and Trump...

Nobody actually believes you can blame the violence on the right wing, do they?

Well, let me rephrase that. Nobody in their right mind would watch what is happening and blame conservatives, right wing groups, or Trump for this violence. This is 99.99% liberals attacking the police, random businesses, and lately... even residential areas.

If the argument is that the very existence of conservatives, right wing groups, and Donald Trump incites you to violence, then you are not in your right mind. Furthermore, if  Joe Biden is suggesting that the blm and antifa violence would go away if Trump condemned it more, then he is further gone than anyone actually believes.

The President has continuously condemned the violence and has offered Federal help in most every liberal city where the rioting and violence had escalated out of control. Help that these local liberal politicians have been rejecting over and over and fighting against tooth and nail. Just over the weekend, the Democratic Governor Tony Evers told Trump not to come to his state. Last week, the mayor of Portland once again refused federal help to assist in their rioting, only to have his own condo building occupied.

The only side appeasing this has been the left and that has been pretty much every aspect of the left. From the media, to the academia, to big tech, to Democratic politicians, to rank and file Democrats, there has been almost no attempt to dissuade or undermine the rioting and violence. They have either openly or tacitly been supporting everything about what blm and antifa has been doing.

But now we are supposed to believe that it's all the President's fault and that the violence is actually being caused by right wing groups and conservative Trump supporters.

Sorry Joe... I doubt anyone is taking that line very seriously. In fact, if I had any doubts about Joe Biden's leadership, the idea that he refuses to take any responsibility, offer any solutions,  and attempts to simply shift the blame would be reason enough alone to never vote for him.

At least nobody cheers when an BLM or antifa thug is killed?

Is it any wonder that support for BLM continues to plummet?

BLM and Antifa now openly soliciting funds to purchase military grade equipment for what they obviously see as an out and out war against Trump supporters and the police. 

Black Lives Matter was sitting at all time approval highs and all time disapproval lows. Then the rioting wouldn't stop. I actually believe that had it just had been a half billion here and a hijacked neighborhood there, that people would have still stood behind them.  The reality being... that in the year 2020, there are more things involved with this sort of stuff than just personal feelings. Even if you might personally uncomfortable with some of this, the whole woke lockstep requirement to show support for these various victim groups raises the bar as to when and how you speak out against things.

But they have been taking it too far for some time now. Certainly murdering and cheering that murder should be too far for just about everyone. The bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch argument doesn't fly when your entire movement is built on the concept that a few bad apples in the police force actually does spoil everything, to the point where it all should tossed away as garbage. This hypocrisy becomes all too obvious.

Sunday, August 30, 2020

So Biden will now "condemn" the violence?

After weeks of providing full scale support for BLM/Antifa riots, Biden will supposedly condemn the rioting in an upcoming speech.

One has to ask if this is too little too late
or simply lesser of two losing strategies? 

On one hand, those people who are sick and tired of all of the rioting and sick and tired of all of the politicians who have been openly in support of said rioting are likely going to see through the Biden rhetoric on this. The reality is this sudden 180 is little more than a blatant political reaction to the turning of the polls. One has to wonder if Biden really has an actual position on this issue or if he just has a finger in the wind on this.

More to the point, the easiest way for a politician to lose an election, is to attempt to be come a "light" version of what the other side is offering. If you want "law and order" then you already have Trump. Nobody is going to vote for the Biden "Trump light" version of providing law and order if law and order is their issue.

Meanwhile, the so called Democratic leader right now is about to undermine many of those marginal minority voters who are not all that excited about Biden to begin with. How will they feel about Biden (and Democrats in general) if their leader decides to abandon their cause... which right now involves 80% rioting and 20% peaceful protests. While you can pay lip service and pretend (like CNN) that most Democrats just want "mostly peaceful protests" - a quick look at social media will tell you that the young rank and file liberal believes that the violence is a necessarily step. In fact, Democrats across the board will eventually admit (when pushed on the issue) that violence is often times necessary to move forward a cause. They believe that peaceful protests will be ignored and eventually shunned (much like taking a knee during the national anthem at sporting events came and went a few years back).

The reality here is that things went too far and you cannot just take it back. Democratic Politicians here in Minnesota appeased the Minneapolis rioters, allowing over a half billion in local damage. Democratic politicians in Seattle appeased failed experiment of CHOP, and likely permanently ruined what was "the" trendy down town up scale retail district in Seattle. Democrats have appeased protesters in Portland, in New York, in Chicago, and now in Kenosha. It's going to be difficult to simply pretend that none of that happened or otherwise "condemn" things now without directly or tacitly admitting that this appeasement was wrong. There are a lot of Democratic politicians at every level as well as liberal voters who will not like their leader bending a knee to the law and order faction of our country.

What does Biden hope to accomplish? Does he expect that he will suddenly provide cover for the state and local Democrats to push back against the rioters? Does he somehow expect that these BLM and Antifa terrorists will listen to an nearly 80 year old man with a history of racism and put an end to things? Doubtful. 

I think it just will reinforce the concept for many of these radicals that they have nobody really in their corner on a political front, and voting is not a useful tool for fixing what they believe is wrong. Either way, they will get a white guy in his 70's who doesn't believe in what they are doing.  

Add that to the millions of others who will see Biden as unprincipled for not sticking with a stance, and it's not hard to see why this is a lose/lose situation for Dementia Joe.  

Sunday Funnies Part II

Latest on the Jacob Blake situation....

Just in case you still are supportive of the criminal and sex offender in this situation... consider this:

Jacob Blake was attempting to steal the SUV in question 

Contrary to popular assumed belief the silver SUV (reportedly with three children in it) was not Jacob Blake's vehicle. The vehicle belonged to his ex-girlfriend, who called the police because (among other things) Blake had taken her keys and was attempting to drive off with her vehicle. The chain of events is not clear as to how the children got into the SUV. In fact, there is no mention of the three children in the police report, offering some question as to whether or not the children were actually there or if it was just another rumor reported to make the situation look worse.

Now considering that this was a man with a history of violence, armed with a weapon, had just fought his way through two taser shots, physically assaulted a police officer... would you have just let him drive off with someone else's vehicle? While that question might be murky, it would not be so if there actually was three small children in the back. Under no circumstances could police officers allow this person to drive off with children in the car, especially when the car was not his.

Sunday Funnies Part I

Saturday, August 29, 2020

Not sure I entirely agree with this assumption..

Biden’s Voters Appear Far More Likely To Vote By Mail Than Trump’s. That Could Make For A Weird Election Night.
According to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 30 percent of registered voters said they planned to vote by mail, and 43 percent said they planned to vote in person on Election Day. But among Trump supporters, only 11 percent said they planned to vote by mail, and 66 percent said they planned to vote in person on Election Day. Among Joe Biden backers, 47 percent said they planned to vote by mail, while only 26 percent said they planned to vote in person on Election Day. (The share who said they would vote early in person was consistently 20-21 percent among all three groups: Trump supporters, Biden supporters and voters overall.)
If this holds, it would mean votes cast on Election Day would skew heavily toward Trump, and votes cast by mail would skew heavily toward Biden. This has serious implications for … well, democracy. First, Trump could argue the mail ballots (which, remember, could account for most of Biden’s votes) were fraudulent and thus should not be counted. Although it’s unlikely they’d actually be thrown out, this would damage the credibility of the election in the eyes of many Trump supporters. Second, it could mean the first votes counted on election night will be disproportionately good for Trump, who might claim victory based on incomplete returns. It might not be until days later, after a good chunk of the Democratic-leaning mail vote is counted, that Biden pulls ahead.

While admitted something like this happened in California, where late counted ballots provided come from behind victories for several Democrats who had originally thought they had lost. But that was the exception (and not the rule) and that included a bunch of odd things that are only legal in the strange state of California.

In many states, the very first thing that they count are the mail in, early voting, and absentee ballots, since generally a large portion of those are already in hand. Many times the candidate with the most non-in-person votes actually is the one who starts off with a big lead... not the other way around. It's usually not until late in the night when you get a better feel for who is winning. What this pundit (and others) have been suggesting is that we will literally have to wait several days and be counting hundreds of thousand (if not millions) of late arriving ballots.

The reality is that most absentee voters or mail in voters will have likely mailed in their ballots well ahead of time. Some states even require that the absentee ballots be post-marked previous to the actual election to guarantee that those ballots will be counted with the rest. Most all states require absentee ballot applications well before the election date (which might slow down some mail voting as people realize that mail-in voting is generally a two step process).

While most states do allow for ballots to be postmarked up to election day, it would be unwise to assume that this means the majority of mail-in ballots will be coming in after the election and counted in subsequent days. In most elections there literally isn't enough absentee or mail-in votes still in the mail to change the results of the election. There probably isn't going to be that much of a difference to declare 2020 an aberration to that conventional wisdom.

We have already run across issues with mail in ballots and quite frankly could run across more. Tens of thousands of ballots pre-printed with voter information already on them were just ruled to be invalid by a court in one state. According to most state laws, mail in ballots cannot be pre-printed with voter information because it becomes easy fodder for potential fraud. In this case, only the date of the election was allowed to be pre-printed. The rest (name address, etc) had to be filled out by the voter by hand. But in spite of knowing that it was a violation of the law, the state sent out ballots already filled out with voter information. 

What happens, in this case if those pre-printed ballots start being mailed in? Those voters may or may not even know that they have filled out invalid ballots. The potential for more court cases on this sort of thing is alarmingly high, which (of course) is the biggest concern for something like this. It's one thing when states create laws over time to allow for more (or even all) mail in voting. But when there is not a system in place, trying to create one on the fly is going to cause more trouble than it might be worth. Especially when the politicians in charge are willing to "bend" the law and pass it off as a Covid related exception that should be allowed. 

One thing I do agree with is the opinion that if Trump is ahead in enough states when we wake up Wednesday morning to win reelection, there will be a problem if Biden comes from behind in a whole bunch of states with late arriving ballots. The longer there are ballots coming in, the more people will be troubled and skeptical. Generally one would expect that even ballots mailed on November 3rd, that we would only be looking at a few days at most. If ballots are still being counted a week out, you will hear much howling (and justifiably so) from people screaming that these are invalid ballots that probably missed the deadline.

Which of course brings us to the other potential issues. What if there are ballots that are postmarked for November 4th and beyond that otherwise might have changed the results? Will anyone be glib enough to demand those votes be counted? What's a day or two in the grand scheme of things? Expect someone to take up that argument and possibly even some California or Hawaiian judge to agree.  

Did the DNC really outdraw the RNC?

Not so fast...
Meanwhile, the Republican National Convention brought in 147.9 million total views across television and online between Monday and the end of Thursday night’s programming, according to a senior campaign official.
The DNC convention, as Fox News previously reported, had 122 million total viewers through television and online.

Now at first glance this seems somewhat counterintuitive. Democrats would want you to believe that all of the real tech savvy internet streamers would be younger liberal people.  But once you get past that stereotype, there is something else probably even more obvious to consider. Of the six major television networks, five of them are literally working to help get Biden/Harris elected. Considering how much less unfiltered convention footage there was and how much more "analysis" and "opinion" was provided by the networks, is it any wonder that Republicans would decide to go elsewhere for their coverage of the events.

CSPAN (the only major cable network to provide pure unfiltered wall to wall coverage) had six times more people watching the Republican convention than watched the Democratic convention. It only seems logical that other unfiltered forums (such as on-line streaming) would also be dominated by Republican viewers. Reality is that Republicans can watch something and make up their own minds. Liberals need to have their future opinions provided for them, therefor the analysis is needed for them to really understand how things went. Without being told why Biden good Trump bad - how can they repeat it on social media?

More to the point, does anyone really believe that the left would have gotten this triggered over the RNC had it really crashed and burned? Keeping in mind that Trump personally garnered 76 million dollars in donations over the four day period, it is quite obvious that it was effective to the degree it needed to be.

Weekend quote to start things off right!

I heard they got a great deal

Friday, August 28, 2020

Just in time to continue the economic momentum heading into November!

Dow erases 2020 loss, S&P 500 and Nasdaq notch fresh records
Stocks closed modestly higher Friday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average erasing its losses for the year to date and the S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes carving out fresh record closes, as investors sifted through data on U.S. consumer spending and confidence, a day after the Federal Reserve announced a policy shift that would allow employment and inflation to run hotter than in the past.
The Dow DJIA, +0.56% closed higher by 161.60 points, or 0.6%, at 28,653.87, while the S&P 500 SPX, +0.67% rose 23.46 points, or 0.7%, to close at 3,508.01. The Nasdaq Composite COMP, +0.60% COMP, +0.60% advanced 70.30 points, 0.6%, to 11,695.63.

Perhaps the Democrats attempts to pin the "bad economy" on Trump better hope that they still have enough data to suggest that there still is a "bad economy" come November. All of the economic markers are up and we still may see another round of stimulus to put money in the pockets of Americans just before the election!

Meanwhile, in other news:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. consumer spending increased more than expected in July, boosting expectations for a sharp rebound in economic growth in the third quarter, though momentum is likely to ebb as the COVID-19 pandemic lingers and money from the government runs out.

The media still likes to temper all of the good news with their opinion that things are not going to remain good. But as much as blue state Governors continue to do everything in their power to keep a lid on economic activity, it still continues to grow. 

Who doesn't see this coming?

Proof positive that people only see what they want to see...

The Violence Could Get Much Worse

Unless police and political leaders begin to crack down on the armed vigilantes monitoring protests, more bloodshed could soon follow the killings in Kenosha.
The killings in Kenosha, Wisconsin, represent an alarming escalation of the fight over police violence that has consumed the country this summer: It wasn’t an agent of the state who shot two Americans dead this week. Instead, an American man turned his weapon on other civilians during a protest—and law enforcement let him walk right by them and out of town. Police and political leaders have failed for years to take the actions necessary to prevent this kind of violence. Without serious, sustained intervention, more bloodshed could soon follow.

So for the past three to four months we have seen rioting to the degree that we have never seen before. Literally billions of dollars worth of property (both public and private) has been destroyed, hundreds if not thousands of people have been injured, and several have been killed since the rioting began.

Every time a business is looted, burned down, or otherwise destroyed... American citizens see their livelihoods altered. For some, it might just be that business that they depended on that is no longer there. For some, it might be that their place of employment was destroyed leaving them without the means to support their families. For other business owners, their personal livelihoods have been forever altered. In some cases generations of blood, sweat, and tears went up in flames literally overnight.

Recently, many of these rioters have been pushing their way into residential areas, literally putting the lives of families, children, and average everyday Americans in peril.

But this particular author sees none of this. Literally sees no problems with the rioting, the violence, the senseless destruction. The problem (as she sees it) is the fact that the very citizens who are the victims of this particular type of violence (which is to say everyone not rioting) are deciding to stand up to these bullies and fight back.

So there must be a "crack down" from the police on these recent activities. Not the burning down of buildings, the looting of the stores, the senseless beatings of random people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. All of that is fine and dandy. Rather the police apparently must crack down on anyone carrying a gun who happens to be protecting something rather than destroying something.

The oddest thing to me is that this person literally writes this down for everyone to read and apparently doesn't' feel the least bit out of touch, hypocritical, or otherwise embarrassed by such a dangerously irresponsible viewpoint.

End of the conventions...

I confess that I watched none of either convention, which puts me with the majority.

The President's speech impressed supporters, triggered his opposition

I doubt we see much bump from any of this. Obviously there was no polling that showed Joe Biden getting any sort of bump from his convention, and I would expect there would be very little reason to believe that a large percentage of people decided to change their vote because of the four day convention held by the Republicans.

While the Republicans had an edge in presentation, the Democrats had an edge in the ratings. Either way, I don't think much changed or probably will change until the debates (if they take place). More than any election I can remember, this appears to be about events rather than the campaign. Where things go with the Covid virus and social unrest will have infinitely more effect on the results of the election than a bunch of August speeches.

Peaceful protesters peacefully asking Kyle Rittenhouse not to shoot them

Kyle Rittenhouse in the act of first degree murder!
Btw, he is the guy on the ground being beaten with a skateboard

Thursday, August 27, 2020

How the media is lying to you...

Wisconsin DOJ Releases Some Additional Information On The Shooting Of Jacob Blake (and almost none of it jives with what we were told by CNN and others)

So let's start at the beginning. Media reports were that the Police officers were only there because there were two women fighting over a minor car accident. The original reports suggests that Jacob Blake was just being a Good Samaritan in trying to break the the fight, when the police came, hassled him (likely for being black), and then shot him in the back.

Other than the fact that Jacob Blake got shot, almost none of this was true. The Police were actually called because Jacob Blake was in violation of a restraining order by being at his ex-girl friend's house. His ex-girlfriend was who called them. The restraining order was in place because he was accused of domestic and sexual assault. There was a warrant out for his arrest at the time the police officers were called.

Secondly, both the Police officers and Jacob Blake agree on the basic concept that Blake was carrying a knife at the time of the police call. There is some confusion as to whether he dropped the knife in the car (it was found in the front of the car where he was shot) or if it had at some time been put in the car and then he was going back to get it.

There is also no dispute that Jacob Black was not being cooperative. He fought against the police and actually fought his way through the normal taser that is used by police officers in this situation. The alternative here is to simply suggest that if a criminal suspect simply resists enough, that police are obligated to let them go.

Either way, the concept that Jacob Blake was there breaking up a fight and was simply hassled for no reason by the cops is not even remotely true, and it begs the serious question as to why that is what was reported by CNN and others.


Pelosi admits to what most Democrats are thinking...

Please Joe, don't embarrass yourself by agreeing to debate Trump!

While Dementia Joe pushed back against Pelosi's argument that he shouldn't debate Trump, the reality is that Pelosi is not the only Democrat and certainly not the only liberal to suggest that Biden not engage Trump in any live debates.

Many others have suggested an alternative format to the debates (such as the questions being provided prior to the debate and the two candidates providing prepared answers in a virtual debate setting) or even just allowing the Candidates to prerecord fodder to air in-lieu-of an actual debate. 

While Biden certainly cannot personally appear afraid to debate Trump (that would be a huge problem for a lot of Americans already questioning hid cognitive ability), whether or not Biden ever actually takes the stage with Trump will be a whole other question. Even when there is not any traditional worries about a debate, the candidate who appears to be ahead is generally going to be reluctant to take any chances and generally will attempt to limit the scope and amount of the debates. 

Much of the conventional wisdom is that Biden may continue to demand that he debate Trump in a traditional sense while other surrogates do everything in their power to make sure that never happens. I will believe that Biden wants to debate Trump the day he steps on the stage with Trump and actually does it.

Don't look now...

Rittenhouse self defense argument looks better the more information we have...

Once again, the knee jerk reaction to something might just turn out to be entirely the wrong reaction. 

It's funny how in a country that supposedly is rigged for the white person and against the minorities, the law enforcement leadership and high level prosecutors  have been quick to arrest and charge the white police officer or white boy with a gun, while pretty much ignoring all of the criminal looting, destruction, and violence that has been ironically justified in the name of social justice.

Either way, the video footage of what happened the other night does actually start to lend itself to Rittenhouse having a legitimate self defense case when it comes to the murder charges. Whether he can justify walking around with a loaded gun is an entirely different concept.

But the video footage now appears to show that Rittenhouse was being chased into a parking lot that there was another shot fired prior to Rittenhouse shooting anyone. Now that first gun shot may or may not have been intended for Rittenhouse, but how does he know one way or the other. He is being chased (apparently for being on the side of the cops or for trying to protect property) by an angry mob who likely wanted to cause him great physical harm if they caught him.

Oddly, after he shoots the person who first approaches him in the parking lot, the mob doubles down on their efforts to chase him down, making me seriously wonder about the mindset of these people. Do they really believe that they are not only above the law, but above normal obvious consequences? Only after Rittenhouse shoots two more of his pursuers do the appear to stop pursuing him.

This is a difficult situation legally. Should Rittenhouse had even been there? Were people chasing him because they wanted to "disarm" him or were they attempting to beat the living snot out of him. Why are we apparently "drawing lines" as to what crimes we are now allowing people to commit and what responsibility does this policy have in regards to this sort of inevitable escalation.

This may be another tough case for a prosecutor to convince 12 people to find this 17 year old guilty of murder. After all, there are more and more and more people everyday who now believe that these riots are well past the point of going too far, and there are more and more and more people everyday who are going to support people standing up to them, if not standing up themselves. If it becomes a crime to protect your property from criminals and murder to not allow an angry mob to beat you, well that is simply a society that many people will not want to live in.