Seeing a news story thumbnail that reads “Are current gun laws biased in favor of white people?” may make some giddy. I clicked. Oh yeah. I clicked that thumbnail like it was my job to click the ever-loving binary code outta it. Yes I did. Then I was greeted with a bit of disappointment.

Before we get to the disappointment, let’s answer that question on whether or not our current gun laws are biased in favor of white people. That answer, in short is “yes”. Not only are most of today’s gun laws biased to favor white people, the laws that today’s laws lay foundation on had everything to do with purposeful bias towards those the state deemed fit to own and carry guns, versus those that the state did not think were worthy. Back in the day that read “guns for whites”, “no guns for blacks”. How the current progressives still refuse to admit or see that is beyond many. No, instead they try to write a false narrative that the Second Amendment was created to usurp the rights of non-whites, rather than take responsibility or point out that subsequent laws are the only things that restricted the rights of non-whites. The Second Amendment explicitly states what shall not happen for people, and that’s infringement.

Who keeps introducing freedom limiting “gun control” laws that will be applied more to persons of color? The same people that come up with these crazy ideas being put forth in our main stream media.

Anyway, I got hooked in to clicking on the story but was greeted with a slightly different piece than I was expecting. The title of the article after being pulled in by their click-bait statement is “Do self-defense laws allow too much room for deadly violence?” Alright, we’re trading a topic that needs to be addressed, such as the fact our gun laws are disproportionally applied to persons of color, with more non-sense that the liberty minded person is forced to defend in 2021. The article was more of the same; guns bad, self-defense real bad, and only white people “get away with murder.”

The past two weeks have seen verdicts handed down in a pair of high-profile murder trials. Though dramatically different in many ways, both centered on the core question of how much the law allows for the use of deadly force in the name of self-defense.

Oh look! Another article claiming these were both murder trials. While that’s technically true, one was proven to be lawful self-defense, not murder. With that, starting an article about the events by claiming one was murder is not only untruthful but I’ll go out on a limb and say it’s libelous. I hope Rittenhouse’s civil attorneys are keeping track of how many people and outlets are now improperly categorizing his case. It was proven to not be murder, therefore should we listen to what else this writer has to say?

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles of criminal law in the United States. The expansiveness of U.S. self-defense laws was on display in Wisconsin, where a jury ruled that Kyle Rittenhouse was lawfully defending himself when he shot and killed two people and severely wounded another during an altercation stemming from a racial justice protest.

The limitations of those laws was made apparent in Georgia, where a jury rejected self-defense claims from three men involved in killing Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man who was jogging through their neighborhood. All three were convicted of murder.

Oh good, some facts on the situations. They’re needed to deconstruct what the author claims later on in his piece.

Though far from unanimous, a significant share of legal experts say the two recent rulings were consistent with the law in their respective states — even though Georgia is a “stand your ground” state and Wisconsin is not. A key difference, they say, is that Rittenhouse did have reason to believe the men he shot posed a serious threat whereas the men who killed Arbery did not.

Many legal analysts on the left have argued that the Rittenhouse verdict is a prime example of why U.S. self-defense laws need to be made more restrictive. They say current statutes allow far too much room for someone to create a situation in which deadly force is needed, as they argue Rittenhouse did by bringing his rifle to the protest. Others take issue with the laws’ reliance on a “reasonable” judgment of danger, since research suggests that racial bias can play a major role in which killings are considered justified.

Let’s play a game. What did Rittenhouse and Arbery have in common? In their respective situations, they were both fleeing from danger. In both of their situations, a just verdict was delivered. Rittenhouse was trying to get away from people attacking him, just as Arbery was trying to get away from people attacking him. Is there enough video evidence to corroborate that? The big difference is that Rittenhous was armed and Arbery was not. We’ll never know what the outcome could have been if Arbery was armed, but it could have been different for him.

In this case the author brings up that racial bias in playing a major role in which “killings” are considered justified. The concept of self-defense is completely lost on the apoplectic progressives right now. At least they don’t want to acknowledge its existence and necessity. Where I’m getting lost is why conflate these concepts with these different situations? Did Arbery’s black family receive justice when the guilty verdicts were rendered? Were Arbery’s very white attackers be found guilty? So what gives?

What did Arbery’s father have to say about the verdict? According to this article headline, he did not say “All lives matter”. Appropriately entitled “No, Ahmaud Arbery’s Father Did Not Say ‘All Lives Matter‘” we have the following:

Some outlets and reporters have misquoted Marcus Arbery Sr., however, suggesting he used a controversial slogan that is associated with criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Several tweets claiming that Arbery had said “all lives matter” went viral.

What he actually said was “all life matter” as he spoke about not wanting another family to lose a child the way he had lost his son.

Your eyes going crossed too from what Newsweek is trying to communicate? They sure seem to be stretching. Marcus Arbery Sr. said:

“We conquered that lynch mob,” he said outside the Glynn County Courthouse. “We got that lynch mob… letting you know that Black kid’s life don’t matter.

“For real, all life matter, not just Black children. We don’t want to see nobody go through this. I don’t want to see no daddy watch their kid get lynched or shot down like that. So, it’s all our problem. It’s all our problem.

“So, hey, let’s keep fighting, let’s keep making this place a better place for all human beings. All human beings. Everybody. Love everybody. All human beings need to be treated equally. We’re going to conquer this lynching. Today is a good day.”

To me, that’s a message more of unity than anything else. One that did not really need Newsweek to step in to set the record straight. Marcus Arbery Sr. affirmed “We got that lynch mob”, and in essence justice. “All human being need to be treated equally” must be a very difficult thing for Newsweek to comprehend. Quite difficult I imagine. Or this hard concept, “…let’s keep making this place a better place for all human beings.”

The talking heads, pundits, and main stream media are in a state of overload. The concept of self-defense is something that the progressives are vilifying now, more than ever. Even when justice prevails, there is an angle in there somewhere. We can’t read too many articles without someone decrying foul about NYSRPA having been heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. Do our gun laws favor whites? They have for centuries, with many persons of color arrested and jailed over trying to exercise a constitutional right.

The same laws also make it difficult for the economically disadvantaged to jump through the hoops to get the right papers to just purchase or carry a firearm in restrictive states. Jurisdictions that subscribe to “may issue”, the issuing authority can simply say “I’m not issuing a permit to ‘that’ kind of person”, and fill in the blank what that means. NYSRPA is actually going to help level that playing field just a little more for all persons, of every color. We’re not even a full month out of arguments in NYSRPA, just over a week and a half out from the Rittenhouse verdict, and about a week from the verdict involving Arbery’s murder. It’s going to be a long stretch of time until we get an opinion on NYSRPA. How much more of this non-sense is the public going to have to listen to? How long’s it going to last afterwards?