Democratic Virtue Signaling

A lot of politicians, and particularly Democrat politicians seem to have friends and family who are...let's say...prone to cross the lines between legal and illegal. That is the only explanation for why they are so protective of the criminal class. Now, California is a one-party state. Therefore, it makes sense that a one party, Democrat run state would want to protect home invaders against law abiding homeowners. Mike McDaniel has the story at the American Thinker today entitled California tries to tear down the Castle Doctrine.

McDaniel spends a couple of paragraphs reviewing the history of the concealed carry movement, and the Constitutional carry movements along with the reinforcing of the law of self-defense and Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrine in particular doesn't require you to run from your domicile before using force to defend yourself and those in your care. With that background established, McDaniel writes:

Such laws also commonly feature the presumption that someone (un)lawfully entering a home isn’t there for good and lawful purposes, and whatever force is necessary may be used against them. They also commonly immunize citizens who defend themselves and their families from prosecution and civil liability. This is a good thing as the relatives of dead violent criminals often suddenly discover the departed were were irreplaceable assets to humanity and minutes from receiving a declaration of canonization from the Vatican.

Castle Doctrine laws arguably overlap Stand Your Ground Laws, which 27 states enjoy. They’re not residence specific and feature essentially the same benefits as Castle Doctrine laws. So long as one is legally present, there is no requirement to run away before using whatever force is necessary against criminal attack. Both laws are common sense, sane empowerments of the law-abiding and innocent against violent criminals.

Despite what anti-liberty/gun/racist cracktivists whine, neither law allows anyone to bypass laws governing lawful self-defense. They’re entirely race neutral.

So, naturally, the California legislature wants to eliminate the Castle Doctrine to empower criminals to invade more homes. This is shocking, and goes against not just our founding principles, but against God. I am reading John Zmirak's book No Second Amendment, No First: Guns and Government, and I am reminded of those principles. The first is that everyone, all mankind, is created in the image of God. That is who we are and it is also our purpose being here: to reflect His image. God, and Jesus is God in the flesh, is not a pacifist. While he commands that we do not murder our fellow images of God, he also demands that we defend ourselves, our families, and our neighbors.

Another principle, not explicitly stated, but it can be derived from reasoning about the stories in the Bible is that no man (or woman, or child) is "good." Jesus tells us that only God is good. All men are inclined to do evil, and that includes all men (and women) in government. It is no surprise then that the state run by the Democrats, who have abandoned God, the Bible, and the founding principles, want to now make self-defense a nullity.  It is a piece with the belief, in spite of all of history, that men are basically good.