Re: Where the fuck is the NRA?

>So let me get this straight
>
>If you are a white, middle-aged man with a legal concealed-carry permit, 
>who happens to be exercising your Second Amendment right to carry a 
>firearm, then:
>
>a) If federal agents find that holstered firearm on you in the course of 
>wrestling you to the ground, they can shoot you dead even if you are not 
>brandishing the firearm, your hands are empty, and you are already 
>incapacitated.
>
>b) The federal government will immediately, without an investigation, say 
>the fact that you were exercising your Second Amendment right means that 
>you are a domestic terrorist who was plotting to assassinate agents and 
>wanted to commit a massacre.
>
>I'll go on record saying that I'm not a pro-Second Amendment person and I 
>think that strong gun control is the way to go. But what the feds are 
>doing in this case is a gun-grabber fantasy the left could never even 
>dream of.
>
>The last time DHS smeared a US citizen who was murdered by ICE, it was an 
>uppity lesbian who was annoying a cop by being nice to him. No fucks 
>given on the right there, I'm sure. But how will they feel when DHS tells 
>them that the concealed weapon they love to carry means that they're fair 
>game to be shot by unaccountable feds anytime, anyplace, anywhere, after 
>which the feds will smear them as domestic terrorists and cop-killers 
>just because they were carrying?
>
>This is Trump's base we're talking about here. How deep can the cognitive 
>dissonance get before something snaps?

We may well be there now; however, I suspect that a True Believer will
accept *any* level of contradiction.

They do not understand simple logic and the scientific method.  We
have no evidence that Pretti did *not* brandish a gun because no gun
was seen in any of the many video recordings until well after the
fact.  The issue goes to defining the "null hypothesis" (a.k.a. "the
burden of proof" in legalese.) I.e.: what is accepted to be true given
insufficient evidence showing it to be false.

So, is the null hypothesis that Pretti was following the law unless
compelling evidence is presented to the contrary?  Or (exclusively) is
it that Pretti was brandishing the gun in a manner predicating an
immediate threat to the federal agents, thereby committing a felony...
unless compelling evidence of his innocence is presented?  We have no
evidence either way; therefore, an intelligent observer simply cannot
say which way to call it; thus, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
(*PLEASE* don't say we "accept the null hypothesis"; my students would
make that rookie error frequently)  The null hypothesis is true from
jump street and remains so until/unless rejected formally.

Now, none of these clowns will bother to read that, and, if they did,
they wouldn't understand it.