Quote of the day—Dean Weingarten

The idea of a person being armed as a provocation to attack appears to flow from a simple premise on the left: A person doing something a leftist does not like, is a provocation to attack them. It is part of the broader philosophical abandonment of the rule of law.

Evidence for this theory exists in the left’s theory of speech from any opponent. Speech from an opponent is considered to be violence, and worthy of attack. Violence, from the left, on the other hand, is considered to be speech.

When leftists surround a car and beat on it; that is not provocation; when leftist shoot at people; that is not provocation; when people the left does not agree with, display weapons; that is considered provocation by the left.

Dean Weingarten
April 25, 2022
Is Carrying a Gun Provocation to be Attacked?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Dean Weingarten

  1. Another example of this: yesterday’s claim by the current Pope that NATO expansion was what provoked Putin to start his Second Holodomor.

    • Bear in mind that the US was intending to attack Cuba if the Soviets didn’t remove the missiles they installed just 90 miles off our coast, back in JFK’s day. The Russians don’t see any difference to us arming Ukraine by making them a NATO member. Those idiots in DC have lost their minds. Then again, they may not have had a mind to lose in the first place…

      They are working hard to generate a war with Russia, a nuclear power. Truly a stupid thing to accomplish. Just for starters, Russia has a VERY extensive system of bomb shelters, the US has virtually none. The only existing ones are for the so-called leaders of DC.

  2. One could say from this logic to leftists not being a leftist in of itself (or far left enough) is provocation to violence and it is justified to attack and even kill those that are not leftists simply for not being leftists. And to them they are totally justified in doing so.

    It does fit in somewhat with my opinion that leftists want nothing less than to literally kill every single solitary person in the United States if not the desire to quite literally exterminate every single solitary person on planet earth that is not a leftist as to them since not being a leftist killing all who are not also leftists is in their minds justified.

  3. Well, their communists. One not even need “do” anything to be a provocation to them. (Being white for example).
    The problem is were far to civilized in our reaction to them. (Which in all honesty we did farm out to the police, being civilized and all.) And we see what they did with that.
    But we are, where we are. And the only thing communists understand is force. So get use to the idea. Cause if you don’t use it, they will.

  4. Might consider this to be another reason to avoid Open Carry where not required.

  5. Hmmm….Is the issue “carrying a gun where I can see it” or “carrying a gun at all”?

    I suspect it’s really ” c̶a̶r̶r̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ possession of a gun at all”. As is pointed out (above) the mere existence of firearms is, quite possibly, at the root of the mental histrionics because, at some level, there is an understanding that “guns” are a tool enabling the possessor to resist the desires and efforts of the Much More Enlightened social controllers who inhabit the political and social Leftist enclaves (which has frequently been offered as an explanation of why the Left is so opposed to the mere existence of firearms).

    While openly carrying an observable firearm may conveniently “justify” Leftist violence, I’m wondering how far down the Observational Scale their intent will go; will wearing a “Shoot Me First” vest constitute sufficient provocation for Leftist violence? How about a ball cap with a Geiselle logo or a pickup truck with an NRA sticker or a rifle rack in the rear window? Does one not need to actually carry, or possess, a firearm to be subjected to Leftist violence, but will mere suspicion of carrying, possession or supporting firearms ownership be sufficient justification to warrant violence on their part?

    Discussion of the recent Supreme Court leak produced one observation: A Yale college professor indicated that to a Leftist, all oppositional speech is violence, which is a provocation constituting ample justifification for physical violence on their part as a reaction.

    Interesting times, indeed.

  6. I’m not surprised. I once had a roommate (a leftist) who said that by open carrying a pistol I was “oppressing” black people.

    Mind you, I’d rather have concealed, but at the time couldn’t get a DE CCDW permit.

Comments are closed.