Black Lives Matter and So Do Their Gun Rights: Where's the NRA on Philando Castile?

The Second Amendment isn't just for white citizens.


Screenshot via Diamond Reynolds / Facebook

The Second Amendment exists, and it isn't just for white Americans. In the wake of the Philando Castile shooting, the police need reminding of that.

But perhaps some gun rights advocates need reminding of that as well.

As reported at Reason and elsewhere, Castile was shot by a police officer near St. Paul, Minnesota, after he reached for his wallet in order to produce his concealed carry permit. Cops then detained his girlfriend and her young daughter—who were in the car at the time—as Castile bled to death. Other officers comforted the cop who shot Castile, but no one bothered to assist the dying man, or even check his pulse.

During a subsequent press conference, Diamond Reynolds—Castile's girlfriend—insisted that he had done nothing wrong. And she's right. They were stopped because their car had a broken tail light. That's it.

In Minnesota, citizens are allowed to carry firearms if they have a permit to do so. Castile was merely exercising his Second Amendment rights. His decision to inform the officer about his weapon was courteous, but not legally required. Permit holders in Minnesota do not need to tell cops that they are carrying firearms unless specifically asked.

It seems fairly clearly, then, that Castile is in some sense a Second Amendment martyr: He was killed by a police officer because he was exercising his rights. We know, of course, that these kinds of things are more likely to happen to black Americans, regardless of whether they were doing anything wrong.

I would think it would be the easiest thing in the world for gun rights advocates to condemn this senseless killing. And yet, as I write this, the most important gun rights organization in the country hasn't said a word. The NRA's Twitter feed makes no mention of the Castile shooting, even though it's been a trending topic all day.

National Review's Charles Cooke cautions against instinctively blaming the NRA whenever there's a shooting, and of course he's right. But I would expect the organization to at last express some outrage that an agent of the state killed a man, in no small part because the man was carrying a legal firearm. Cooke also observes:

In my view, too many conservatives react to these stories by presuming that the police must have got it right. I understand how irritating it is to hear the argument that "cop X was bad, therefore cops are generally bad," but it is equally fallacious to contend that "cops are generally good, so cop X must have been good." There is, I'm afraid, some truth in the charge that conservatives are skeptical of government up until the point that the police or the army are involved. 

The Castile shooting—as horrible as it is—provides a perfect opportunity for civil liberties advocates on the right and left to come together and condemn government overreach that resulted in the death of a man who did nothing wrong. It's a moment to reaffirm that Constitutional rights should be enjoyed by all people equally, regardless of race.

NEXT: Class Action Lawsuit over Automatic Driver's License Suspensions in Virginia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT:

    Corrine Brown: Rep. Corrine Brown to face federal charges

    The rules of the House of Representatives say Corrine Brown can still serve while indicted, unless two-thirds of the members vote to expel her.

    1. She's a Democrat. They'll defend her.

      1. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Friday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $100 per hour. I work through this website. Go Here.... http://www.trends88.com

    2. She should have just lobbied to be included on the BOA settlement approved charity list.

    3. Government is organized crime; her offense was freelancing.

    4. If she gets re-elected while indicted, then her people deserve her...

      1. Her people? Those same kind of 'people' voted in Alcee Hastings, a federal judge kicked off the bench for corruption, and do so continually.

    5. Reporting by the Florida Times-Union found that Brown raised money for One Door as part of a 2013 golf tournament where sponsorship levels reached as high as $20,000. The newspaper reported that One Door was based out of a single-family home in Virginia, and that the group received money from "political action committees, lobbyists, and foundations run by people around Brown."

      So it's a miniature version of The Clinton Foundation?

      1. And this is why America is racist.

      2. So it's a miniature version...

        And there-in lies the issue. If there's one thing to learn from the Clinton's; 'Too Big to Fail' is a cogent defense.

    6. I'm making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
      This is what I do_________ http://www.trends88.com

    7. I'm making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
      This is what I do_________ http://www.trends88.com

    8. So it was a female congresscritter, not a male cop that murdered Philando?

  2. This is an excellent point that needs to be made. After all, white people are allowed to walk about with fully automatic assault gun rifles slung over their shoulders with total impunity and, it goes without saying, are never hassled - let alone violently confronted - by police.

    1. Well, after you go thru a background check, pay your $200 transfer fee, pay 5-50,000 for the "fully automatic" weapon, then you are allowed to (in many states, some not).

      But nowhere in the 1934 GCA (the law that mandates the above) does it say anything about race.

      1. In cases like this: sarcasm* or troll, neither warrants a plain spoken reply

        * - most likely in this case

        1. "assault gun rifles" should really be a giveaway.

    2. I would like to see some incidents cited, please. I know that suring some multiple person demonstrations, individuals have carried rifles that cannot be distinguished from fully automatic weapons from a distance (unless they are being fired). I'm not saying that doesn't count, but if there have been incidents of solo police confrontations I haven't run into them.

    3. If your tongue is not figuratively poking completely through the side of your face then you are an imbecile. If you did in fact mean to post this as a sarcastic comment then I apologize. If not, then GFY.

    4. Oh really? Let's ask Open Carry Texas about that.

  3. This isn't a 2nd Amendment rights issue - it is a police misconduct issue.

    Laws and regulations that infringe on individuals ability to keep and bear arms are 2nd Amendment rights issues.

    1. He was shot because he was exercising his 2A right to carry. When it is accepted as de-facto operating procedure by police, It does infringe individuals ability to keep and bear arms

      1. If it was a "de-facto operating procedure by police" there would be a lot more people gunned down every day as there a lot of people with carry permits.

        Furthermore, the outcome could have been the same if he was wearing a hunting knife on his belt or if had no weapon. Trigger happy cops are trigger happy in lots of circumstances. How many times have we heard the rationale that the cop "thought' somebody had a weapon as the reason for shooting them?

        As I said this is a police misconduct issue - not a 2nd Amendment issue. The NRA is about opposing legislation and regulation that interferes with the right to keep and bear arms.

        This tactic is the sort of thing that the media does all the time to target some group or person they don't like anyway. Something happens and then they immediately start demanding that X person or X group denounce that something as if X person or X group had some affirmative duty to do so and as if not denouncing it equated to condoning it.

        1. Good point.

        2. So... who says there aren't? My eyes tell me that the lapdogs of asset-forfeiture prohibitionism waste no opportunity to murder African, Latino or hippie individuals without cause, and are protected by mock trial from the hanging they deserve.

    2. Don't see why it can't be both. If police routinely kill people for exercising RKBA, that is effectively an infringement, and is as likely to have a chilling effect as any law (if not moreso -- a living person can challenge a bad law in court).

    3. This is totally a 2nd Amendment issue as well. Who cares if you are legally allowed to carry if the cops shoot you for it? The NRA are a bunch of cocksucking neocons. I just got renewal notice from them the other day. It went straight into the trash. Let's see if GOA says anything. I doubt they will. Larry Pratt is just another copsucker.

      1. If cops can shoot a darker toned driver in legal possession of a gun without consequence, it won't be long before before the color boundary gets lighter. If blacks are afraid to own guns because they are likely to get shot, then it will only be a temporary privilege for others.

        I don't think the gun in the pocket of the guy in Baton Rouge should have gotten him shot. It seems the 911 call was from a homeless guy that kept coming up demanding money, and was told to beat it and shown the edge of the gun.

        I understand he is a convicted felon, but that's partly from having a gun and marijuana at the same, partly for dating a 14 yo when he was 20, and partly for other stupid shit.I can understand him wanting a gun for protection, especially if some old wino was demanding money.

        Yet the fact he illegally had a gun is offered as evidence it was an unavoidable shoot.

      2. Can you imagine if the NRA was not in the cops corner however. Once that goes away, guns are history.

        1. I was really hoping that the NRA had turned a corner when they supported an Indiana bill that amended the state's Castle Doctrine to allow homeowners to shoot cops that were illegally entering their home (a Republican introduced and supported the bill in the state senate and it passed both houses of government safely and with bipartisan support). They did this even though the police unions in Indiana rallied against it.

          Guess old habits die hard

    4. Rico demands the NRA jump when he says jump. And when they don't he demands your outrage!!!!

      When is Soave going to demand the ACLU get involved?

      Oh wait, they don't support that part of the BoR...

    5. Laws, regulations, and habits. I would say this was both a 2nd amendment issue, and a police miscoduct issue. The police are in the habit of stoppping armed citizens as if the fact of their being armed created reasonable suspicion of a crime. That has to stop, or the Second Amendment is a dead letter.

      1. What also needs to stop is the double standard of "white man with a gun = proud patriot, black man with a gun = drug dealer or gang member". I bet a lot of copsuckers believe that.

        1. Let's ask the Bundy's about that double standard and which way it goes?

      2. Crime is the operative word. To conservatives it means "endanger the state or violate the ethical and moral feelings of the Germanic American race," just as it did in 1920 when the 18th Amendment became law and the NSDAP platform was published. To both looter parties it means insufficient zeal in supporting Communist Manifesto plank 2 as amended into the U.S. Constitution.
        A prohibitionist looter state is incompatible with the same Second Amendment that demolished the Soviet Socialist empire, and the Second Amendment got here first.

        But it's a big planet. Anyone with a hard on for income taxes and Kristallnacht gun laws can replace England in the European Union of national socialists. Problem solved.

  4. Robby, dragging race into this, even as incidentally as you do in this post, poisons the well.

    Don't do that.

    1. It's Robby...

    2. It's not incidental. He did it repeatedly. Gotta stick with The Narrative, even if it means completely distracting people from the real issues and solutions.

      Nice hair, but what's underneath, I'm not so sure about.

      1. It's fluff all the way down.

        And maybe a little seborrhea.

    3. I think you are mostly right. But the specific point here is worth making in the context of current politics. Securing the gun rights of black people was an important part of the civil rights struggle and that shouldn't be forgotten. Gun control really is racist.

    4. No, Robby has a point ? liberal Derpbook is playing this as a gun control martyr, as in "We need gun control because cops shoot black men with legal guns but not white men with legal guns."

    5. c'mon guys, he kowtowed and wrote and article we wanted...let him be for a while.

      (yes RC I understand your point but it serves better on the other thread, this one highlights a point made in those earlier threads, be happy)

      Give a camel an inch and it eats the whole cake or something

    6. Anyone who fails to notice that Karl Popper was as totalitarian as Edward Bellamy is hardly in a position to criticise young Robbie, YAF and all.

  5. I would think it would be the easiest thing in the world for gun rights advocates to condemn this senseless killing.

    If you focused on the race angle and ignored the fact that a significant portion of the NRA's membership and contribution exchanges involved police officers, departments, and unions it *would* seem easy, sure.

    1. I'm absolutely certain there is a wait and see attitude on how to react to this based on these issues and the lack of an official response to what happened.

      Not to support or defend the NRA on this, but they are a single issue organization, and right now the spin seems to concentrated on the race issue more than the '2A' issue.

      This is gonna turn into a burning dumpster fire for that PD and the local and state government.

      1. If I were the NRA:

        "Our hearts and prayers go out to the victim's friends and family. We believe every individual has a right to keep and bear arms and are troubled that the exercise of that right may have contributed to the victim's death in this case.

        We strongly condemn any person or agency that would use deadly force for no other reason than possession of a firearm. It is too early to make a definitive judgment on the facts in this case and we look forward to hearing a full accounting of events."


        1. I'd leave off the last sentence but, then, it's not really anything the NRA or one of its affiliated publications doesn't publish every other month.

        2. This.

          The NRA should be more nimble with communications in the age of social media, and not making a statement is a statement.

          1. NRA commentator Colion Noir has been talking about this all day on Twitter and DerpBook. Robby is just being part of the problem here by being a typical media shitbag that doesn't research his articles.

  6. There is, I'm afraid, some truth in the charge that conservatives are skeptical of government up until the point that the police or the army are involved.?

    Cooke is right, but conservatives have generally not been skeptical of government unless it affects them personally, similar to how progs look at government abuses.

    Like progs, so-called "small government" conservatives want a small government for themselves but a big government for all of the people that they don't like/want the state to go after.

    It's why when you question them about supporting national registries for Muslims and closing down mosques while defending Christian bakers in the name of religious liberty, their answer usually boils down to, "BUT MUH FREEDUMS BEIN TAKIN AWAY."

    1. Is this accurate or a conglomeration of caricatures? Sure, the religious right has many people incapable of consistent thought, but MPAI. People capable of forming consistent thought patterns aren't particularly the norm.

    2. Oh, you mean the way many so called Libertarians and actual antitheists like Bill Quick and here on this site want the government to go after anything Christian?

      1. Bill Quick? My high school classmate? Bill, come to libertariantranslator.com
        We've got some catching up to do...

  7. The NRA probably ought to wait until we see a full dashcam / bodycam video before saying anything about this particular case.

    I assume that their position is that legal carry isn't justification for cops to start shooting.

    1. I assume that their position is that legal carry isn't justification for cops to start shooting.

      Not to mention that I think if the NRA threw it's hat in the ring against Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein it would probably fair better than Johnson and Stein put together. Ignoring the chunk of NRA members who also wear a badge, what exactly is the upshot of alienating some portion of your faithful membership in a principled stance to maybe-possibly bring some more liberals and libertarians into the fold?

      1. They have to cling to principle. The ACLU has defended neo-nazis and has always been commended for it, even though I'm sure a good chunk of their donor base didn't approve. The NRA can and should defend gun rights even if it pisses off their members who happen to be cops. Sticking to principles is a good thing.

        1. They have to cling to principle.

          Says who? It's their organization, their call about whether to cater to their existing membership, cling to principle, or remain silent/seek other options. They're a lobbying organization in for the long game, not an action committee wholly invested in any one incident or election.

          Will you drop your membership in the NRA if they don't speak out? As a percentage of the NRA's total membership, how many people do you think are in your same boat?

          1. Why would I keep giving money to an organization that won't actually do the work they're supposed to be doing?

            1. ^This. If they side with the cops over this gun owner, I'm done.

              1. Wow, DEAT...

                I didn't realize anyone who cared about 2A issues was still an NRA member after they authored the Brady Bill. huh. Well, I look forward to hearing where your 20$ will be spent in the future, cause I put the odds on the NRA doing ANYTHING REMOTELY principled at 0.0.

                Might I suggest the JPFO or GOA for your donations?

            2. Why would I keep giving money to an organization that won't actually do the work they're supposed to be doing?

              I didn't know/assume you are/were/would still be a member. I didn't stay in the NRA for a lot of reasons. At least one, their efficacy in the state of IL and around Chicago, it turns out, I was at least modestly mistaken about.

              If you never were a member and have no intentions of being one I don't see that you're opinion matters much to the NRA one way or the other. Having answered my first non-rhetorical question, got an answer for my 2nd?

          2. All lobby groups have a vested interest in preserving the hobgoblins and windmills against which they pretend to tilt. I support the LP.org against all comers because it is votes that are counted. Contributing to lobbies only identifies contributors as suckers with no clue of the long game. Integrity is what counts, but to partisans, not lobbyists.

        2. The ACLU has gotten a lot more selective over the years.

          1. Not to mention pulled a few batshit crazy moves actively supporting rather explicitly anti-Civil Liberty positions or actions.

            1. And it's hurt them. They've refused to stick to their principles in an effort to pander to their base, and they've basically lost the respect of lots of people. This is the moment the NRA decides if it goes the way of the ACLU or not.

              1. This is the moment the NRA decides if it goes the way of the ACLU or not.

                HRC could get on the podium tomorrow and say nothing but the word 'gun' and the NRA's membership would probably climb more than they could possibly accomplish by saying anything today.

                Yeah, thom sure, you can use it.

      2. The NRA isn't the only game in town, and a different org (GOA?) that stepped in where they failed could make some major gains among people who support gun rights but are culturally alienated from the NRA.

        1. Good luck with that. Read Larry Pratt's bio.

          1. I'm sure there are other 2nd amendment organizations too, I don't know anything about the specifics.

            1. Yes, there are. Usually the state level organizations are much better and more focused on the actual gun rights issue, rather than a whole cultural world view.

        2. I don't know, is it the GOA? You're less than convincing.

          I ceased being a member of the NRA a more than a decade ago. I find/found them to be generally more principled/consistent than the ACLU, SPLC, or similar lobbying organizations but I didn't generally see anything to convince me that they weren't one modestly radical leader away from being just as milquetoast. More important/relevantly, they weren't or were no longer effective in the locality I was departing and weren't/aren't exceedingly active or effective in my destination locality and largely ceased to be relevant otherwise in lieu of the internet.

          1. Plus, their constant fundraising appeals are annoying as hell.

  8. But I would expect the organization to at last express some outrage that an agent of the state killed a man, in no small part because the man was carrying a legal firearm.

    I don't know if that's been firmly established...

    From what I've seen, this shooting could have taken place exactly as it did - regardless of whether or not Castile had a gun, or whether or not he mentioned it to the cop.

    We don't even know whether or not the cop heard Castile mention the gun.

    He was reaching for ID.

    1. It might have happened the same way regardless of whether Castile actually had a gun or not, but do you have any doubt that the shooter is going to claim that he fired because he thought Castile was reaching for a gun? Police shootings are largely "about guns" even when the victim doesn't have one because a police officer's mere subjective belief that someone has one is usually considered sufficient grounds to excuse any amount of force the police officer subsequently uses.

      1. This is my contention. Either we have a right to protect ourselves from the abuses of the government or we don't. If cops are the ones enforcing the abuses, who exactly would we be aiming at?

      2. but do you have any doubt that the shooter is going to claim that he fired because he thought Castile was reaching for a gun?

        No. That was the point of my post.

    2. Cops and other jackbooted minions murder slaves in a looter state, with impunity. East German altruist Todes-schutzen snipers killed civilians fleeing communism. When was the last time you saw one of them identified? Charged? Convicted? Mock trials, as in the Declaration of Independence, protect murderers for The Looter State.

  9. I'm seeing a lot of effort to blame NRA for the actions of an incompetent cop, and all of it is ignoring the fact that the NRA was founded to keep southern cops from disarming the freedmen in the reconstruction period.


    1. So what? That doesn't excuse their present-day shortcomings. Unless you're arguing about history, it's not even relevant at all.

      1. It's noteworthy that the left has turned, in a matter of hours, this into a full on NRA bashing story.

        1. It's Robbie, whaddya expect?

    2. What? Where'd you get that bullshit? The NRA was originally founded to train people to be marksman, to be better at shooting and taking care of rifles. It had nothing to do with protecting the RTKBA or lobbying the government.

      1. This is correct.

        The NRA was started in order to promote better marksmanship in the aftermath of the civil war. Far too many northern conscripts were inept with rifles, unlike their southern brethren, who generally came to the military already knowing how to shoot, and shoot well.

        But that does not mean they were not a civil rights organization from the word go.

        It simply means that, at that time, there was no real effort to disarm the American populace so there was no opposition to them training people in the competent expression of their right.

        It was only once gun banning became a thing that the NRA morphed into a legislative lobbying organization.

        1. And found out how much money there was in scaring gun owners with the gun control boogeyman.

          1. Right, because the boogeyman has never actually passed laws restricting individual citizen access to firearms .

            Unlike, you know, politicians.

            1. Politicians, as in, you know, looter political parties scrounging, um... votes?

              1. Indeed.

                Voters (aka the mob) can often pose a threat to liberty. Something that the people who insisted on a Bill of Rights understood. But that is hardly a 'boogeyman.' More like it is the very reason the NRA exists - to defend liberty against the very real threat of a tyrannical majority.

          2. Yeah, because no one on the Left (like, say, Obama, Holder, Feinstein, etc.) has proposed confiscating guns since, say, LAST WEEK. Please croak more quickly.

    3. It was my understanding that the NRA was formed to promote marksmanship because some Civil War officers were appalled at the poor quality shooting skills of the soldiers. Would like to see your source.

    4. Not according to the NRA. From their web site at https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/ :

      Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

      After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.

      An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York State, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.

  10. Maybe the NRA is staffed by grown-ups who don't obsessively signal on the interwebs all day?

    1. It's a national story that involves infringement of RKBA, so it's sort of their area of interest.

      1. national story that involves infringement of RKBA

        And Michael Brown was a national story about a black youth killed for jaywalking.

        1. And Michael Brown was a national story about a black youth killed for jaywalking.

          The two stories aren't related and aren't comparable.

          1. LOL

  11. It's sad how certain phrases have crept into our language and quietly replaced terms that carry more impact.

    If a civilian kills someone without a justifiable cause, we call it manslaughter, homicide, or murder. If a cop does it, then it's a wrongful shooting or police misconduct.

    If a civilian savagely beats someone, it's assault, battery, etc. If a cop does it, then it's inappropriate use of force or failure to deescalate.

    If a civilian uses a weapon on another civilian, it's an assault with a deadly weapon. If a police officer does it, then it's an inappropriate deployment or a negligent discharge.

    Are cops ever indicted on charges of attempted murder?

    The remedy for civilians is practically always jail time and/or restitution. The remedy for police is practically always better training.

    1. Cops ARE civilians.

      The only non-civilians I'm aware of are members of the military.

      Let's get rid of that confusion once and for all.

        1. I stand corrected. I seriously thought that that term was reserved specifically for individuals who are not members of the military.

          1. If they aren't civilians, then they shouldn't have any problems having their rights curtailed while on duty. That's how it works for the military.

          2. wiki link

            The term civilian is often used by members of the servant government and media to include the civilian police but this usage is incorrect since police are civilians subject to civil law and not military law. This continues to be an ongoing misuse of the term civilian.

            I think wiki is historically accurate. Just giving you a heads-up that that talking point isn't iron-clad.

            1. So maybe M-W is just reflecting current usage. I always thought that the distinction from the wiki quote you have there was the real one.

              1. It's a militarization of police thing. When I was a kid, growing up on base, if a cop (or anybody else) referred to someone as a 'civilian' they usually got a 'who are you calling a civilian, civillian?' Somewhere in the past 30 years we've let the police caste legitimize a distinction between themselves and the populace.

            2. Problem is, that assumes that police are civilians because they are subject to civil law--yet, they obviously aren't subject to civil law. They're not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice either, but they _are_ subject to the rules they make up for themselves. It seems to me that they are subject to military law, just not the one that the Fed's official military is subject to.

        2. Revisionist bullshit.

          Webster's 1913: "One whose pursuits are those of civil life, not military or clerical."

          1. ... probably should have refreshed the page in the past hour and a half

          2. Thanks. Do keep these youngsters honest. The English language is molded by the kleptocracy using money it extorted from private enterprise. Inconvenient words like pelf, boodle, influence-peddling, dry killer and political pull are pronounced obsolete in subsidized classrooms.

      1. They were civilians up until the public decided that it was OK for law enforcement to act like paramilitary organizations. Watch footage of soldiers entering a building and then compare it to a SWAT raid. Use a battering ram to breach the door. Toss in a flash bang grenade to disorient occupants. Enter, fan out, sweep the room for threats. Force any occupants encountered to the floor immediately. If anyone makes any movements that suggest non-compliance, they're probably dead. Move in further after declaring the room clear.

        The cops just execute the tactics more amateurishly because they don't drill as often as soldiers do. They'll probably kill your dog in front of your kids too.

        What you're saying used to be true, but it is not true anymore. We wish it were still true. Our country started wars on drugs and crime and the citizenry didn't blink when those wars created wannabe soldiers who wear blue instead of green.

        1. Yep the definition changes with the role.


      2. Deat:
        they are Civilians with special protections so you could argue that they are some sort of third state of matter. Kind of like politicians.

      3. Deat:
        they are Civilians with special protections so you could argue that they are some sort of third state of matter. Kind of like politicians.

    2. "Are cops ever indicted on charges of attempted murder?"
      No but sometimes government rent a cops get charged. Guess they need a better union.

  12. I blame Facebook video. Putting someone on camera escalates tensions in an already tense situation. Without Facebook this may never have gone down the way it did.

    I'm not saying we should ban Facebook, but we should at least give it due consideration.

    1. Cop wasn't on camera until after the shooting.

      1. Presumably the phone was out and she was fiddling with it some time prior. I'm still leaning toward blaming Facebook.

        1. Got it. Fiddling with your phone is grounds for summary execution.

          I don't say this very often, because it doesn't often apply, but you are a fucking idiot.

          1. Or he just really hates Facebook.

          2. Some people have a real issue with internet sarcasm.

            1. OK. Got me! Whew, I actually thought for a second that there was someone out there who was that retarded.

              Good one.

            2. Roses are red
              Violets are blue
              Some poems rhyme
              Some don't

        2. So, it was stagefright?

        3. what woman doesn't have their phone out constantly and continually fiddling with their new phalic symbol that never runs out of ocnversation

    2. What the living fuck?!?!?

      Without Facebook video we would never have known about any of this.

      Seriously, pull your head out of your ass, it's so far up there you can see the plaque on the back of your own teeth.

      1. I don't understand why you are so angry at the prospect of Facebook's culpability. Like I said, without Facebook this possibly would not have happened, in which there would be no need for video because no one would be dead.

        1. So out of all the possible contributing factors to this incident, cop giving conflicting orders, black man declaring he had a legal right to carry a weapon, officer losing his shit and opening fire, the best proximate cause you can point to is Facebook?

          Are you autistic?

          1. I am glad you conceded that Facebook is a possible contributing factor.

            1. Good sarc. Had me there for a few minutes.

              Well played.

              1. People do play with their phones too much and thus should be shot while coming home from work.

    3. Nobody needs 10 cat memes.

      1. 10? You must have a different FB than me. More like 10^87

    4. This was why South Park replaced all guns with walkie-talkies instead of smartphones. Police told them that smartphones are triggering because they can be used to falsely indict police for misconduct cases. Smartphones weren't triggering before because the cop could always confiscate the phone and delete the offensive, illegally recorded videos. Now they're terrifying devices because those videos can be transmitted off of the device and stored somewhere that the cop can't delete it.

      I fully expect the police to start issuing DCMA takedowns on such videos. Facebook, Youtube and others are hosting copyrighted interactions with citizens that infringe on the rights of cops to justly shoot people.

  13. The Second Amendment isn't just for white citizens.

    Or only citizens.

    1. There is no shortage of looter kleptocracies that strip their slaves of guns, money, property, virginity, dignity, life...

  14. He was shot because the police have become panty-wetting hoplophobes (at least as regards other people having weapons) and convinced that if they "feel" threatened they're allowed to kill you.

  15. Addressing the article, it's a non-sequitur. The NRA defends the Second Amendment and like all of the amendments to the Constitution, it is a restriction on government against infringing rights. It says nothing about individuals because it doesn't have to. A government commanded not to infringe the right of the people to bear arms implies broadly that all citizens are protected by that same restriction on government. Why would the NRA have to say anything about that?

    Is this just a call to capitalize on a tragedy? Is virtue signaling so important that any organization that doesn't regularly engage in it is rendered impotent by their inattentiveness to condemn?

    No proggy is going to have his mind changed about this. The hard-core prog has already decided that no civilian should be permitted a gun and that the mere existence of firearms in civilian hands is justification enough for cops to fear for their lives constantly and kill anyone anytime they get jumpy. I'm sure they're already out there spinning this into a "that's why guns should be completely illegal" by virtue of the fact that a gun (legal or otherwise) was present.

    1. Civilian.

      You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

    2. You're actually correct in your usage of the term 'civilian.' My apologies. I learned something today, something disheartening.

      1. Merriam-Webster dictionary adopted police and firefighters into the definition around 1960. Prior to that, practically all dictionaries sided with you.

        Proggies always like to use the claim "language changes." What they really mean is that they're perfectly content to change dictionary definitions if it is politically expedient for them to do so. They read 1984 and took Orwell's Newspeak dictionary not as a satirical warning but as a template to follow for adapting society to their whims.

        "The facts have a well-known liberal bias" the pundit joked. The reality is that the ability to distort language is the ability to distort reality around people in a way that they won't even notice that it was done. Look at the word "racist" for another example. It used to mean that a person believed that his race is superior to all others. Now the word is much more broadly defined such that even disagreeing with someone who happens to be of a different race often qualifies. Disliking someone's cultural artifacts is now racist. The progs realize that their redefinition was heedless and are now seeking to redefine it to mean "prejudice plus power" so that it now only applies to people (probably male, depending on whether it is expedient at the time to portray someone as privileged) with white skin. It's linguistic molding to extrude parts that only consistently further their goals while more precisely striking their ideological opponents.

    3. Why would the NRA have to say anything about that?

      Why should the NRA exist at all if they aren't going to say anything about it?

      And, sorry if this is a bit nit-picky, but lots of amendments to the constitution, including some of the bill of rights do grant positive rights. There is no natural right to a jury trial or to vote, for example. Those are things created by the government.

      1. I do not subscribe to the + - rights discussions. All rights are equal. If it imposes on another it aint a right.

        I am a Natural, Civil, Reserved kind of rights guy. Jury trial is a Civil right, derived as a function of being a member of civil society. Life, 2A, etc. are Natural rights derived from not being dead. Reserved are simply Civil/Natural rights held in trust until responsible exercise thereof can be demonstrated, driving, owning nuclear missile, dating a red head. We can argue the legitimacy of when, how, where rights can be reserved but a right is a right. And by the way, the Civil kind are a derivative of the Natural kind.

        1. Sure. Just get everyone to agree on your definitions of words and you are all set.

          Whatever words you like to use, I think my point (which was about the constitution of the US and not the nature of rights) stands. The constitution grants and/or protects some rights in ways that are not simply restrictions on the power of government.

          1. Snark aside Zeb, my "definition of words" is actually far more prevalent in the ideological literature than Positive/Negative angle. Natural rights discussions go waaaaay back. The piece of paper(velum) does not nor can it grant any rights. It can attempt to outline guidelines for protecting them (it is doing a poor job of this).

            Everything in the Constitution is directed to the government. Either a restriction on it or an enumerated power to in. The Amendments that I can see as not being restrictions are 13 (a restriction on allowing or a power to prevent, could look at it either way), 16 (clearly an enumerated power), and 18 (like 13). The rest of the document, excluding the enumerated powers in the Articles, is a restriction on government. I can see nothing that meets your criteria of

            The constitution grants and/or protects some rights in ways that are not simply restrictions on the power of government.

            You and I do agree the NRA should address the issue. I hold the opinion that and organization dedicated to protecting a specific right should take actions to that effect when either de facto or de jure infringements occur.

      2. Why should the NRA exist at all if they aren't going to say anything about it?

        It's a lobbying organization that also funds legal defense of civil rights. Does that necessarily imply that they need to be a virtue-signaling squawk box for every incident that involves a firearm?

        I guess that in 2016 it really does. If the President is going to waste time and taxpayer money calling a press conference to attack gun rights anytime a criminal shoots someone, everyone else is forced to respond in kind.

        Now everyone's got to Tweet or apply tacky Facebook filters and mindlessly, insincerely parrot "thoughts and prayers" comments incessantly. If a terrorist uses a bomb, then the fault lies with the terrorist. If the terrorist uses a gun, then the fault lies with the gun. If a police officer murders someone with a firearm, the fault lies with the victim because a police officer's sidearm is anointed with holy lubricating oil by the Holy State.

        1. Relax.

          My thoughts and prayers are with you.

          1. Oh, good. I sensed a disturbance in the force that told me that you were about to be placed on a watch list. Someone's finger was already hovering over his enter key before you typed that. Crisis averted.

  16. I'm glad someone is finally focusing on the race angle because i was afraid that - as usual - people would ignore it and instead focus on things like civil liberties and widespread police misconduct, which are things that just distract from the core-narrative of "things *mattering*". Because Things Mattering is a very coherent idea which leads to obvious policy changes, and is not just a bunch of ego-inflating feelgood rhetoric.

    1. It doesn't count as thinking until you have slogan. That's what I say.

  17. Where's the NRA? Sticking their tongue up the cops' asses.

    1. Pretty much, yes.

  18. without Facebook this possibly would not have happened, in which there would be no need for video because no one would be dead.

    Sounds legit.

    If you're Tulpa.

    1. I'm not entirely sure he is being serious.

      1. He's not. I just figured it out.

        Time to recalibrate the ole sarc meter!

        1. Boy, you're getting jerked around all over the place on this thread.

          1. Seriously, are we not doing phrasing?

        2. My sarc meter blew up a while ago and I decided it just wasn't worth repairing any more. Now I just treat all comments everywhere as sarcasm and my emotional well being has improved greatly.

          1. ^^^THIS

            With one GLARING exception for me. And thankfully that exception has now shown up in this thread. This is his bailiwick too...I am certain that my exception thinks that saying the word gun to a cop is a capital offense.

  19. Left Facebook pages are loosing it. They can't even be consistent inside one meme.

  20. They're actually discussing this incident live on NRANews.com

  21. Black Lives Matter and So Do Their Gun Rights: Where's the NRA on Philando Castile?
    The Second Amendment isn't just for white citizens.

    Such lies!
    The Second Amendment is solely for the ruling elitist filth who enslave us and for other key essential personnel who make our country great, like movie stars, professional athletes, and TV personalities. The masses do not need guns. They are protected by our loving, wise and professional police forces that make our lives more secure by increasing their numbers, confiscating our guns and violating our so-called constitutional rights. So let us all surrender our firearms with a smile knowing we are indeed slipping into the socialist slave state we all covet so much.
    What could possibly go wrong?

  22. Don't count on Sharpton to be calling the NRA to hold hands. There is way too much money for Sharpton to gin up anger over the black white thing. Forget the fact that black people should be armed, legally just like the rest of us.

    This will be interesting to see how the pimps spin the two recent shootings. Baton rouge was more of the same abuse. The Minnesota thing is entirely unique but the narrative of the day will over ride how this guy was actually exercising his right to protect himself.
    If nothing else, it proves the failure of profiling and how one sided the enforcement of police abuse is on law abiding black citizens.
    The baton rouge thing is growing numb for people even though it shouldn't.
    Now is the chance for the media to do the right thing in covering both sides of these unique cases. They won't. They will have the despicable gall to eventually blame the licensed gun owner for having a gun at all.

  23. This is what is so appealing about the Libertarian Party, there are so few hypocrisies. I have far more respect for a Libertarian who defends 2nd Amendment rights and simultaneously defends the people it tries to protect than I do for those who defend one or the other.

  24. Similarly, Facebook is very quiet. Where are the anti-gun folks when it's a cop holding the gun? These guys need much better training AT THE LEAST.

  25. I don't know about this case but if you smoke weed most states take away your conceal carry permit so in this case it is not a 2A issue. the weed info is after the fact though but the other issue here is if you carry you don't move a finger until the police tell you, you keep your hands on the wheel until they tell you otherwise and when they ask for id you present them with the ccw permit at the same time all the while keeping your hands where they can be seen. this case sound like there are contradictory stories but it looks like the cop played the killer here again.
    So the NRA should keep their mouth shut until all the evidence is in but they could say what the one comment or said earlier

  26. His decision to inform the officer about his weapon was courteous, but not legally required.

    It was fatally stupid.

  27. What the hell, Robby?! How is it somehow the NRA's fault that cops are harassing people for mundane crap like broken tail lights and then escalate to violence? The issue is that our betters in government are not held to the same standard as the rest of us, not that a bunch of meanie political conservatives have a pro gun rights club. To see you jump on the "omg republicamz r rasict" durp bandwagon is disappointing.

    1. That wasn't his point, his point was that the NRA as an organization frequently takes on cases of the average joe exercising his Second Amendment rights and they also comment on other relevant gun issues (like that one high school sport shooter who forgot her gun in her car and was punished for it because she parked her car on school grounds).

      These two Black men that were shot, or at least the one in Minnesota, were killed while rightfully exercising their right to bear arms, and their cases should be easy for the NRA to rally around, in fact this may be one of the few cases that the NRA could support and the left wingers wouldn't cry foul.

      But for whatever reason (and the reason might be racial, though I hope I'm wrong), they're not commenting.

      1. So it has to be racism? They should just jump when the PC bullshit media demand it? There cannot be more going on--things are just as simple as the media say it is.

  28. Sure glad the level heads at reason are keeping this issue on point.

    I'm curious what the acceptable timeframe is for the NRA's response according to Robbie, since he doesn't give one after bitching about it.

  29. This is race-baiting, Salon-level tripe. The NRA has consistently defended the RKBA of all Americans, and the insinuation that they don't care about the rights or safety of black Americans is libelous.

    Fire Soave. Fire him yesterday.

  30. I haven't seen any video of this,or even read the details.
    But it occurred to me that;
    1. black people have pretty well established that they are likely to "overreact",to ignore the requests of the officer, or to resist arrest. That sensitizes police to sudden movements of their black "suspects". Today,it even HYPERsensitizes them,with all the racial inflammation going on by black leaders,especially Al Sharpton and Comrade Obama. Today,police have come under attack,they are now targets. So,they're GONNA be touchy.
    2. the man's concealed weapons permit instructor did a very poor job of instructing this man on how to handle a police stop. My instructor emphasized that it's VERY unwise to say to the officer "I have a gun"..even if you're going to finish with "..permit." He advocated that we hand over our carry permit when handing over our driver's license/ID. Which has always worked well for me personally.
    3. This man may have made a "sudden movement" in reaching for his wallet to produce his permit/ID,not asking permission from the officer or warning him BEFORE moving his hand behind him,where a gun or other weapon might be concealed. That can easily be construed to be the start of a battle.
    4. This officer had TWO people he had to watch,the man and his wife. What was the wife doing? was she a bit "vocal"? Perhaps adding to the stress of the officer?

    1. From the news report that I saw, the officer told him to produce his license, so he was reaching for his wallet in accordance with instructions. His mistake appears to have been that he didn't inform the officer up front that he was armed, and had a permit. The report also said that the wife screamed that he had a permit only after the officer first began shooting.

      It's still murky.

  31. S.A.F. had issued its disgust both with the constitutional issue as well as the race issue.

  32. The NRA has a history of racism with respect to gun rights. Witness their support of Governor Ronald Regan's California gun control laws that were aimed at black activists.

  33. In most of the previous cases where African Americans were shot by police, they were engaged in something illegal. From what has come out in this case, it seems pretty clear that the police shot an innocent man without provocation or cause.

    I certainly want the police officers who shot him to be put away for murder. But both murder and policing are local matters. What exactly is the nation supposed to do about this? Do people really want more federal regulations of police? I'd be wary of that, since I think police unions would likely be able to twist any federal laws to their favor and advantage, probably creating the exact opposite effect of what was intended.

  34. Robby--

    Have you noticed that the NRA typically waits till more facts are in before it issues an official statement?

    Isn't this a good thing, rather than the rush to judgment that the mainstream media seems to love to do nowadays?

    It's even worse to rush to assume that this is a matter of race like the mainstream media does.

  35. Unless dashcam footage proves that the cop did anything other than what he said he did, the cop was justified.

    Anyone who has any sense knows that during a traffic stop you are supposed to keep your hands where an officer can see them at all times, unless given permission to move them. This is for the LEO's safety AND YOURS. It is even more critical to do so when you are in possession of a weapon, and as a CWP-holder, Castile should have known this. In Minnesota it is required to have firearms training in order to obtain a CWP, & this type of scenario is covered. You do not tell a LEO that you have a gun and then reach for your permit. You tell the LEO you have a permit and that you are carrying, and then you wait for him to direct you. The second he reached, Castile signed his own death warrant.

    1. The report I read was that the officer directed Castile to get his license, and that's why he reached for his wallet. But also, that Castile told the officer he was carrying as he was reaching. If that's correct, it sounds like a misjudgment on Castile's part. But was it cause for the officer to blast away?

      1. Castille is black and he is therefore damned if he does or doesn't. My response to a cop asking me for ID as a passenger would be to tell him to kiss my ass. Castille needed to comply and it cost him his life.

        1. Castile was not the passenger. He drove the car. Look it up. Google is your friend.

    2. Yours is the position of a servant. Not a free man.

      The stop itself warranted a knock on the window and a notice that a taillight was faulty with a suggestion to get it fixed soon. No demand for a license or any other interaction is warranted and especially not a drawing of a weapon.

      There is no justification for a death in this instance.

  36. I disagree that "the most important gun rights organization in the country" is the NRA. They're certainly the most often cited by the media. However, I'd argue anyone who's serious about defense of their 2A rights would lean toward GOA or SAF. I am not trying to knock the NRA but they're not exactly at the forefront of anything beyond money spent in advertising and getting mentioned a lot in the news.

    1. And how many dues-paying members does GOA have, again?

      1. a little of 300K at last count, and I would hazard a guess most of them are ALSO NRA members. Its not a competition.

        But to Craigs point, I am a GOA member and not a an NRA member. I just dont like NRA's leadership, or their tendency to waffle and compromise. I also prefer to give my money to an organizations that concentrate almost exclusively on legal challenges and defense. This is why I will sometimes donate money directly to NRA-ILA, rather than maintain an NRA membership. GOA, SAF, NRA-ILA thats were my money goes.

        1. I think all the gun organizations spend too much time preaching to the choir. This is a danger in politics in general, but in these perilous times I think it's hurting the pro-gun side.

  37. Someone not "on message" after a shooting is refreshing.

  38. As a conservative, I tend to side with police because the left demonizes them. If MSNBC, Salon, Huff, and NY are fanning the flames for a race war or war against cops, the truth must be on the opposite end of the spectrum.
    If the guy was legitimately licensed and did nothing stupid, I fully support him and think the cop should be prosecuted.

    1. As a conservative, I tend to side with police because the left demonizes them.

      Are you kidding? Police unions and prison unions are in bed with the Democrats.

      If MSNBC, Salon, Huff, and NY are fanning the flames for a race war or war against cops, the truth must be on the opposite end of the spectrum.

      Those outfits are generally correct that police show a disturbing and unacceptable level of homicidal impulses, corruption, incompetence, and racism; it is their solution that is wrong, namely to give more power to Democratic politicians and to disarm citizens.

      The actual solution is to get rid of sovereign immunity and hold police responsible for their actions the same way you would any private citizen. Even better, simply privatize police altogether. But I don't see "the Right" advocating that either.

  39. Maybe, just maybe, they are waiting to see what both sides of the story are, if there is any dashcam or bodycam video before making a statement instead of rushing to judgement when only one side of the story is presented. The video covers after the shooting. Unfortunately she did not start recording before the shooting. Instead of doing like they did in Ferguson, let's investigate first and comment after.

  40. I am a concealed pistol permit holder and NRA member. Some points to make:

    1. It's been less than 24 hours since the fella in Minnesota was killed, or maybe since we heard about it. I would be intensely disappointed if the NRA popped off right away, before looking at the details. Everyone else seems to feel a need to rush to judgment without access to all of the relevant information.

    2. I am highly confident that the "unorganized militia," by which I mean the 12 million to 15 million concealed permit holders, will take a close interest in that one. You can be absolutely certain that this will be closely analyzed in the days ahead. I will be watching a site called bearingarms.com, because those people analyzed the death of the self-styled militia member, LaVoy Finicum, who was shot to death by Oregon State Police and F.B.I. agents in February in connection to the occupation of a building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Bearingarms is as pro-second amendment as they come, but their analysis convincingly backed up the police version of those events, and declared Finicum's death an example of "suicide by cop," a conclusion that synmpathizers found intensely disappointing.

    (to be cont'd)

    1. 3. From the news accounts I've read, the driver in Minnesota didn't tell the officer right off the bat that he was carrying until he was reaching for his wallet, at the officer's direction. This was an error in judgment on the driver's part, and one that I would never commit. This doesn't justify what came later, but it's relevant.

      4. My point #3 notwithstanding, the "broken tail light" stop is a red flag, and so was the officer's hair-trigger reaction. Again, this will be dissected to a fare-thee-well by the "unorganized militia," which -- unlike Reason or Mark Dayton or Barack Obama -- knows what it's talking about. So stay tuned.

      1. He wasn't the driver but the passenger. He shouldn't have had to show ID because he wasn't driving. That fact by itself is confusing to me.

        1. Castile was not the passenger. He drove the car. Look it up.

  41. By the way, I'd love to know how many of the commenters in this thread are active gun owners, by which I mean more than "grand dad's rifle is in the attic," and how many are concealed carriers. From what I've read in this thread, it would seem "not many."

    1. More than you might think.

      1. I carry, legally, and have a concealed carry permit which I take seriously enough to be somewhat aware of gun laws in many states. Unlike most people who write articles about guns and gun law and violent crimes involving firearms , I also know the data. Reason is by no means the worst but a magazine with such a title would be better served by authors who reason from facts.

        1. Reason is not the best of the libertarian bunch. Doherty, Tuccille, and Napolitano are good on RKBA topics, but the rest are largely cosmos, and it gets worse every year.

          Fortunately a large portion of the commentariat are hard-right libertarians and are passionate enough to rake equivocating toadies like the author of this article over the coals for directing fire at our allies rather than the enemy.

      2. I'm sure there are some here, but I think the overwhelming majority of commenters here have never been near a gun.

  42. So, now that we've potentially got BlackLivesMatter protestors killing Dallas cops (mostly white from the photos and video), should the NRA rush out and make a statement about that event too, before all the facts are in?

    WILL the NRA rush out and make a statement about the Dallas cop-killings, in order to fit the idea that the NRA only rapidly speaks out about pro-gun white people or law-enforcement killed by guns but remains silent about pro-gun black people killed by guns?

    We will find out right now--count the days and see how long it takes for the NRA to make statements on both killings.

    1. Okay, being objective here, it took one day for the NRA to issue a statement about the Dallas cops who got killed by a self-described black power group.

      Now, being objective again, we wait and see whether and how long it takes for the NRA to come out with a statement about Castile. It may take a while for the investigation to uncover enough for the NRA to make a statement. It may take so long that the NRA may choose not to make a statement because it will be old news by then. The Dallas cop killings were fairly easy to figure out and decry, given that a black power group took responsibility publicly.

      1. The NRA put out an official statement on the Castile shooting today (same day as the statement on the Dallas cop killings) that essentially says what I expected: they want more time for the facts to come in before making a comment. It is a few days later than their statement on the Dallas cop killings because Castile's shooting was earlier.

        People may slam them for biding their time, but think about it this way: if the NRA chooses sides too quickly and later facts come out that make them look like they chose to support the wrong side, they will never hear the end of it. The NRA's enemies will be quoting "remember the time the NRA spoke up in defense of so-and-so and was wrong?" (and this applies to crooked or killer cops too) for years or decades later.

        The NRA MUST be extremely careful what it says officially. I am glad they are waiting for more facts to come in. And if it turns out that the cops murdered Castile for no good reason, then I hope and pray the NRA supports the rights of a law-abiding (well, MOSTLY law-abiding) concealed-carrier.

  43. Maybe any organization, sans Reason Mag, is waiting for the whole story.
    It may well be that the contents of this article are spot on, but ratings won't support it then as it does now.
    I guess sensationalism shows the need for ratings.
    Sad to see here, it bleeds, it gets pandered to.

  44. Mr. Soave does not represent Reason or reasoning well. He assumes many facts not in public domain and makes questionable inferences from them.

  45. Mr. Soave remains conspicuously silent on the murder of five police officers in Dallas.

  46. As a matter of fairness I think a call to disarm police is in order. Every police killing should be followed up with loud and long calls for the disarming of our overlords.

  47. I guess now we know what happens when black folks take Sean Hannity's advice. (Link to a Daily Show clip from the 2014 Michael Brown fiasco. Skip to 4:30 for the juicy bit.)

  48. Who knew that "gun rights" included blasting away in the city, killing people and destroying property!

    1. It doesn't.

  49. ...P.S. to all the trolls here: The NRA owes you nothing...

  50. Murder has a cop carve-out, just like everything else.

  51. The NRA leads from the rear, and always has.

    They were all about keeping schools gun-free zones, until they saw their membership stoutly and effectively defending the opposite proposition (in other forums, because "talking to the NRA is like barking up a dead dog's butt," probably one of the few true statements James Brady ever made).

    They were all in favor of discretionary licensing, until their members took it out of their hands to going to their own state legislatures themselves.

    Their president went on radio with the opinion that "nobody needs an AK-47," before the members again drilled them a new one, at which point he lamely backpedaled on it.

    They actively tried to scuttle the Heller (then Parker) case, out of their perennial fear that the time was "not yet ripe."

    In every case, once the win they originally opposed was achieved, NRA got out in front and accepted the trophy for it.

    This is why the only reason to belong to the NRA is to make petty tyrants soil their underwear at the membership count. More effective and more principled gun-rights organizations exist, and some of them do the real and effective work. Many of them are newer state organizations, founded in desperation after the NRA's official state affiliates exhibited the same doddering, lukewarm "defense" of their firearms rights as the national org.

  52. "?but no one bothered to assist the dying man, or even check his pulse."

    I thought I saw what looked like an attempt at CPR. Am I conflating two recent videos?

  53. If the stop as you have described it here turns out to be an accurate account, I believe you will see the NRA weigh in. But like the mainstream media you have jumped the gun.

    While livestreaming is probably good for birthday parties and other things, it's not so good at a crime scene. It get interpreted instantly and the echo chamber echoes. 5 men in Dallas are dead, in part, because of it.

    Mr. Castile may be entirely innocent. But according to other, also premature, reports, the police were seeking an armed robbery suspect and Mr. Castile fit the description. While he was almost certainly not the perpetrator, the cops were doing their job and were justifiably on edge. Armed robbery. Get it?

    The account you have stated as true here is not necessarily so. Other, unverified, accounts also say that Mr. Castile was NOT a permit holder and had the gun in sight of the officer. That is risking being shot if true. Hands on the wheel at 11 and 1 and wait for instructions. Black or white.

  54. I made a meme, so that even Trump supporters can get the point.


  55. The 2nd Amend supporters know that having weed on you violates your concealment license.

    Here's the girlfriend and Castilo the day before, getting stoned in the car ? with the 4-year old kid in the back seat ? driving under the influence.


    Anyone want to guess why she was so "calm" during the incident?

    This case gets thrown-out easily....

  56. "Castile was shot...after he reached for his wallet in order to produce his concealed carry permit."

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Reynolds said on her video that Castile was shot while (allegedly) putting his hands up after being told not to move. Since Castile is dead, we can't ask him about his intention. It is also unknown whether Castile had a carry permit or if it was in his wallet at the time. The only information I have at this time about the existence of a permit is a tweet from Ramsey County: "Mr. Castile never applied for a permit to carry with our office. Therefore we did not issue his permit." So he may have had a permit, but if so it was not issued by his presumed current county of residence.

    "They were stopped because their car had a broken tail light. That's it."

    Also assumes facts not in evidence. Scanner transcript indicates they were stopped for an i.d. check because Castile matched the description (black, shoulder-length dreds worn in a bun, facial hair) of one of two individuals suspected in a recent armed robbery. While that does not prove the shooting was justified, it would explain why the cop was jittery.

    "but no one bothered to assist the dying man..."

    This is false. The scanner transcript shows that medics were dispatched as soon as the shots were fired: "Copy shots fired Larpenteur and Fry. Do you need medics? / Code 3! / Copy. Medics ? code 3 to Larpenteur and Fry." There are also photographs of CPR being performed on Castile.

  57. Who would like to see more black kids being taught how to shoot a gun by their Dads? I know I would.

    1. Same here. I'd also like to see more dads of any race teach their kids how to shoot guns and just plain bond with their kids.

  58. uptil I saw the receipt which was of $4452 , I accept ...that...my mom in-law woz like truley bringing home money part time from their laptop. . there neighbour haz done this for only 9 months and resantly paid the loans on there condo and purchased a gorgeous Cadillac . go to this site .....

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  59. The NRA has made us all paranoid. More guns will not make a safer.


  60. Here's NRA one-two-punch to rush-to-judgment media that insinuate that the NRA is racist:


    Castile was shot on July 6. Colion Noir's video was published on July 10.

  61. I'm making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.... Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.ReportMax90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.