Free John McNeil

Here is a story of a travesty of justice committed against a black man named John McNeil who was defending himself in his own home. It comes from a liberal website (the Root is an off-shoot of Slate dedicated to black issues).

In this article, the Root (not to mention the NAACP)  defends the castle doctrine, defends the right to self-defence, and even talks somewhat positively about the NRA and gun ownership. The Root, as is typical of a liberal website, has generally been hard on gun ownership and self-defence. Even though they reject “stand your ground” in the article, it is a less vehement rejection than is normal and it is somewhat amazing that liberals are even defending the castle doctrine at all.

It seems Salon, another left-wing website, had an article about this a few months back, where they also seem to almost support the castle doctrine.

Check out this other article from the Root asking why the NRA is not supporting the self-defence and firearms rights of a women who fired a warning shot. That is a good question, why isn’t the NRA on this?

Lovers of liberty should note these articles, they present a great opportunity to promote gun freedoms. Those who value freedom and firearms should be all over the cases of those like John McNeil.

From this article, it seems that, at least for the Root, black liberals will side with race over ideology. If we bring this story (and similar stories) to the front we can score a major victory for self-defence rights.

Gun control laws originated in historical attempts to oppress and enslave blacks by denying them their freedoms to own firearms and defend themselves and some blacks still recognize the link between freedom and firearms today because of this.

If we push this story (and other similar stories in the future), we can show blacks that gun control laws are not in their best interest, and will be used as tools to oppress them. If this story can get the NAACP (which has fought against gun freedoms in the past) to defend self-defence as per the castle doctrine (even if they still won’t defend “stand your ground”), there is the chance to bring a large portion of the black population into supporting gun and self-defence freedoms.

If we could get a major Democratic voting block arguing for gun freedoms, this could change the entire gun control debate on the left. Imagine liberals and Democrats trying to criticize the NAACP for their position on gun control. Imagine the George Zimmerman controversy again, but with blacks on the pro-freedom side.

Think about it. If we can force the story of John McNeil into the national consciousness, we can force liberals into a quandary: they will be forced to argue (either directly or indirectly) for the legitimate right to self-defence and firearm ownership through the castle doctrine for Patrick McNeil. Either that or they will be forced to go against the NAACP and argue for keeping John McNeil in jail for defending himself and his family.

So, I ask you all to pass around the story of John McNeil. Argue for his self-defence rights. My blog and readership is small, but some of my readers probably have more influence than me, so use that influence to help John McNeil win his freedom and to show the inherent oppression and injustice of gun control and self-defence restrictions.

Free John McNeil.

5 responses to “Free John McNeil

  • Tim

    I think that your writing may be good enough that you should try to get paid for it, if you aren’t already. If I were you I might try submitting posts like this to places like and similar places.

  • Free Northerner

    Thanks, I might give that a try at some time.

  • Linkage Is Good For You: Truncated Moving Week | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

    […] – College Orientation, A Good Wife And A Full Quiver, Lightning Round, Anarcho-Monarchism, Free John McNeil, Evolutionary Psychology, Politics And Bad […]

  • Will Brown

    You ask; “… why the NRA is not supporting the self-defence and firearms rights of a women who fired a warning shot.” The short answer is that a “warning shot” cannot be fired in self defense.

    Slightly fuller answer; “self defense” is a standard of law based upon type and immediacy of threat proffered against oneself (and in some jurisdictions, another person as well). Firing a gun is considered as being “deadly force” rather than some lesser degree of force. Self defense commonly requires justification to use deadly force in defense of certain acts or threats of stipulated types of attack (kidnapping, assault, murder, etc).

    Basically, if she had opportunity to fire a “warning shot”, she had opportunity to avoid the threat by some other means instead. “Stand Your Ground” laws typically say only that, if you have to defend yourself (by whatever standard your jurisdiction applies to “self defense”) you don’t also have to make any effort to avoid confrontation too. Fundamentally, she wasn’t in immediate danger of threatened harm to qualify for a self defense claim and a shot wasn’t otherwise justified under law in her actual circumstance. Potential for threat is only justification for avoidance of same, not assault.

    Not to put too fine a point on it all, but she probably would have had a more readily defensible case if she had just gone ahead and shot to kill instead.

  • Free Northerner

    Really? I did not know that. Good to know for the future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: