1 Trending: Why Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Congress Puts His Pardon In Jeopardy

2 Trending: The Lawless Zone In Madison Is A Preview Of America Under Socialism

3 Trending: You Aren’t Angry Enough About What Covid Tyrants Took From You

4 Trending: David Ellison Wants ‘Independence’ For CNN. He’ll Have To Tear It Down And Start Over

NYT Writer Pearl-Clutching About Self-Defense Laws Reveals His Contempt For The Constitution

The ‘right to kill’ a threat isn’t growing, as The New York Times purports. It’s always been there thanks to the Second Amendment.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

The right to self-defense, most prominent in the legal doctrine of “standing your ground,” is an indisputable constitutional right. This fact, no matter how longstanding and essential to American exceptionalism, elicits much chagrin from The New York Times’ Mike McIntire, who recently argued that laws making it legally easier to protect yourself and your property are a concerning deviation from history.

“Using a Gun to Defend Yourself? The Right to Kill Is Growing,” McIntire snivels in his headline.

Corporate media are infamous for clutching pearls over Americans’ right to bear arms. The reporters who aren’t painfully ignorant about gun laws and culture work hard to shame firearm makers and mock gun freedom laws. McIntire, it appears, is no different.

Defending oneself and passing laws affirming that right, according to the reporter’s subhead, is a “distinctly American tradition.” More specifically, he asserts that “across American history, the justifications for using a gun seem to multiply, an ever-expanding terrain for legally sanctioned violence.”

McIntire, whose journalistic claim to fame is being “part of a team that obtained and published” Donald Trump’s tax returns, attempts to make his case using a recently enacted Tennessee law that recognizes threatening or responding with lethal violence to protect property from trespass, arson, burglary, robbery, and aggravated cruelty to animals can constitute reasonable deadly force. The provision also affirms protections for anyone who uses deadly force to defend “a third person” from “death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse.”

The statute includes several caveats of actions that would not be justified,........

© The Federalist