Guess all my “careful what you wish for, libs” warnings are falling on deaf ears.
A new undercover video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas features Antifa “fight instructors” teaching activists how to incapacitate political enemies by violently attacking them.
“If you get a good liver or kidney shot, it’s pretty much crippling them,” the Antifa instructor said. “They’re going to be pretty much doubled over and in a lot of pain.”
The instructor also recommended breaking one of the floating ribs to cause maximum pain on a victim. “It’s hard to move after that — to catch a breath,” he added helpfully. He told the activists that once the target is incapacitated, they can either run away or “really put a beating on them” if they want to “make it personal.”
The instructor said if they don’t knock the victim out, they should punch him in the nose or poke him in the eyes.
Well, okay, there’s that. Then there’s this.
“Why do you think you need a gun?”
It’s a question I suspect we all get asked at one time or another. We often answer that we carry for our protection, to defend ourselves or others. Others reply with a snarky, “It’s not called the ‘Bill of Needs,’ now is it?” Neither person is wrong, nor are many of the other thousands of potential answers.
However, it seems that some in Antifa are telling protestors looking to counter a right-leaning rally in Portland to “bring their own guns.”
I’m not about to tell those who are going to demonstrate peacefully to leave their guns at home, either. While I don’t want to see shootings take place, I want to see innocent people injured or killed even less. All people have a right to defend themselves, and that doesn’t change because of circumstances.
If anyone should leave their guns at home, it’s the group known to start fights over ideological differences, namely Antifa.
The Proud Boys would be no more than smart to arm up, knowing as they must that they’re attempting free speech in the no-free-speech zone of Leftardia, Oregon. As such, they can expect to be hounded, harrassed, and physically assaulted, with no support or protection of any kind from law “enforcement,” who will assuredly look the other way as rally-goers are encircled and viciously beaten by large groups of masked cowards.
People on our side tend to bluster a bit about Civil War 2.0, asserting that the Left needs to be careful about pushing us too far lest they get their heads handed to them with a quickness. I’ve done it plenty myself, in fact, and am still inclined to think it so. But it might also be that such talk is closely akin to that preceding CW 1.0, when both sides assumed that one good, hard skirmish would settle the issue, with all the air rushing out of the other side’s will to fight following a solid demonstration of serious intent. Once the balloon went up for real, the one side would realize that the other was serious, stack arms, and go home.
It didn’t work out that way at all, of course; the most notable thing about the first Civil War was its bloody ferocity, the willingness of rank and file farmboys, shopkeepers, and factory hands to stand firm and slaughter each other at close quarters until none were left upright—very nearly literally—again and again, over the course of years.
Against all previous expectation, the Southern soldiers in particular fought on well past the point of no hope—exhausted, outnumbered, clothed in rags, shoeless, half-starved, weary, far from home, with rocks and clubs when their ammunition ran out. Very few of them owned slaves, or knew someone who did. A fair number of my own ancestors fought for the Confederacy, and not one of them had so much as a pot to piss in, as they used to say. Slavery was an issue far, far removed from them, with little relevence. Yet they fought anyway, doggedly and without thought of surrender.
Might it not turn out the same today? How seriously does the Left take its openly-declared assessment of us as evil, murderous, bigoted, Nazi despots out to do grievous harm to all within our greedy grasp? Can people who don’t even understand what socialism is be deluded enough to lay down their lives to defend it anyway?
All signs point to yes. On the other hand, though…