Yeah you’re right, instead I should trust that the police will use restraint, arrive instantly, and do the right thing 🤡

A dog is much better protection than a gun.

10,000 dogs a year are shot and killed by police on routine duty. That’s just what we can estimate based on what we know. Your dogs are not going to protect you from the actual threats we may face as the US continues to decline.

www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0016718520300440#%3A~%3A….

…tennessee.edu/…/d303db7c-80cc-4a6a-83c5-fd19be3d…

By that logic, a gun won’t either. Many gun owners are shot by police. If you shoot back at an unlawful entrance, they just bring more. They don’t really care. Power disparity is too great already.

This fight is won elsewhere.

The fight was lost in the Supreme Court. 42 USC §1988 was explicitly set up to grant civil rights attorneys fees if they won their claim (and it costs a lot to prosecute a civil rights claim). But lawyers and firms would accept winnable civil rights cases on the basis that they would eventually get paid. That came to a halt in 2001 in 532 US 598, decided on May 2001, which talked about the rights of the “prevailing party” to be paid. In function, it killed civil rights litigation.

Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1848

The police shooting people because they have or might have guns is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment right to carry. (ACLU never got involved because they don’t take 2nd amendment cases).

But here’s the thing. Cops don’t arrest right wing armed protesters. Why do you think that is? Cops are willing to shoot unarmed protesters in wheelchairs, but fail to move on a fat out of shape protestor with an AR-15. theguardian.com/…/protests-houston-police-shoot-u…

“Winning” requires multiple fronts, from civil resistance and disobedience, to openly carrying protests, to voting, to boycotts, to lawsuits, to just simply speaking out when something isn’t right. And proposing alternative solutions.