A few days ago, I ran across a column by a Terrence Cummings, “COMMENTARY: But for Rittenhouse doctrine.” It was the usual garbage you’d expect from victim disarmers. I didn’t — at the time — think it worth a response column, but I did write to Cummings.

“But for the Rittenhouse doctrine, you would think you would have a right to take your AR-15 to any grievance or protest near you and across state lines. Then, you could possibly “murder” (used loosely throughout this piece) two people, injure another and call it self-defense.”

Lessee…

1. Rittenhouse didn’t have an AR-15. It was a Smith & Wesson M&P rifle.

2. Rittenhouse didn’t take the rifle across state lines.

3. “Murder” is a specific term best not used “loosely,” unless you enjoyed being sued for libel/defamation. Murder is the deliberate, unjustified killing of a human being by another human being. The general term you are searching for (if you were being honest) is “homicide.”

3a. Rittenhouse fled his first attacker. He fired only when trapped and physically attacked. That is confirmed by video evidence and witness testimony.

3b. Rittenhouse again fled an attacking mod (video & witnesses). He fired again when, laying on the ground, he was again attacked with potential lethal force (the skateboard; if you doubt that’s potentially lethal, ask the family of the Santa Monica man killed by being struck in the head with a skateboard, or check with the California police officer who ended up in ICU when struck with a skateboard by an Antifa protester).

3c. Rittenhouse — still on the ground — fired again at a person who repeated aimed his own unlawfully possessed firearm at Rittenhouse. Video & witnesses.

4. Immediately after the shootings, Rittenhouse fled the pursuing crowd and attempted to turn himself in to the police.

I never made it much past that, since you’d already proved yourself ignorant of federal and state law and the events of the night, and that you are grossly biased.

Cummings’ reply was simple.

Thanks so much for your email and sharing your perspective. It is welcomed and appreciate.

I assumed that was the end of it, until this morning when I received another email from Mr. Cummings. He referred me to another, earlier column he wrote: “COMMENTARY: America worships guns.”

Continue reading The Supreme Court of the Public Broadcasting System? →