Comments by "gary K" (@garyK.45ACP) on "Defending yourself against a mob isn't a crime | Mark McCloskey | 'Saturday Report'" video.

  1. 1. This is NOT a 2nd Amendment case. 2. I would suggest people in Missouri elect someone that will DEFEND rights, not negotiate them away for political expediency. We have enough of those guys already! Reminder: As a political expediency, the McCloskeys plead guilty to misdemeanor charges. I thought that was a mistake, but it's their decision. Why? The Governor could not pardon them until there was a resolution in their case and a pending felony indictment would have prevented him from running for Senate. It was quick and easy to SURRENDER his rights to self defense and plead guilty to a misdemeanor, pay the fines, buy another rifle and move on. That was HIS/THEIR choice. He literally surrendered on the issue of self defense and now wants to use self defense as his talking point. VERY insincere. I would vote for Kyle Rittenhouse long before voting for this guy! He ran away when it came to defending OUR rights. 3. The BAR Association decided to put him on probation for the charge he plead guilty to, which they CAN do. This is not criminal probation, this is a a professional organization probation. They are a private professional organization and can sanction their members as they please. The Missouri Supreme Court upheld that. 4. SCOTUS declined the case because there really is no decision for them to make. McCloskey chose to plead guilty, now he has to deal with the consequences.
    1
  2. There was no question in this case of whether we can own weapons. That case was decided in 2008 and is called "Heller v. DC" And YES, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. This case was whether or not the McCloskeys' law licenses could be put on probation. Nothing else. There was no question in the case regarding defending yourself. Over 7000 cases are appealed to the Supreme Court every year and typically about 80-90 are accepted. In fact, the McCloskeys plead guilty to misdemeanor charges in this case. That was a mistake, but it was an expedient they chose because he wanted to run for Senate. The crimes he plead guilty to would not prevent him from running for Senate, the unresolved indictments against him WOULD prevent him from running for Senate. Under the Missouri Constitution, the Governor cannot pardon someone in advance of a conviction. Their decision to plead guilty is not without consequence. Their firearms were confiscated and they had to pay fines...BECAUSE they plead guilty rather than choose to fight the charges. So, their consequence is 1 year probation of their law license. This is really NOT Supreme Court material.
    1
  3. True patriots would not negotiate RIGHTS for political expediency. He plead guilty to a misdemeanor so he could get on with running for Senator. He DID NOT stand up for OUR rights to defend ourselves. Don't confuse him with someone like Kyle Rittenhouse. He mitigated his risk, he did NOT "stand up for rights" We have enough Senators negotiating our rights already.
    1
  4. He plead guilty to misdemeanor charges.
    1
  5.  @whicker59  I may have done the same thing. That isn't the issue. The issue is that decisions have consequences and those consequences can come after (almost always come after) a decision. Deal with it. I does not become an issue for the Supreme Court because he made an expeditious decision. He made his bed...now he needs to sleep in it.
    1