DO IT IN THE NAME OF HEAVEN, YOU CAN JUSTIFY IT IN THE END.

That song didn't turn out very well for anybody, and neither will foolish claims that truly peaceful protesters are in greater danger today.

The Rittenhouse verdict comes on the heels of the oral argument in an important Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court, addressing the right of people to carry weapons in public. The case, argued on Nov. 3, raises the question whether states can deny people concealed-carry permits without an extraordinary reason for doing so. At oral argument, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority seemed poised to rule that the Constitution protects the right to such permits. It might not be an unlimited right, as some of the court’s conservative justices expressed concern that there should not be a right to carry a weapon in crowded spaces, such as sports stadiums or Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

But beyond that, the justices seemed very willing to proclaim that everyone has a right to carry a weapon in public. Their basic reasoning goes to the heart of the Rittenhouse case. To the court’s conservatives, the world is a place where you always need a weapon because of the ever-present possibility you will be attacked and need to use your gun in self-defense. This is exactly the defense Rittenhouse successfully used in his trial.

The Supreme Court won’t rule on this case until next year, probably in late June. But the writing is on the wall given the questioning earlier this month and reveals just how conservative this set of justices is. There’s never a guarantee, but almost everyone believes that by the middle of next year there will be a constitutional right to carry a weapon in public, maybe with a few exceptions.

What this means in conjunction with the Rittenhouse verdict is very scary for all, but especially for racial-justice protesters everywhere. With a proliferation of concealed-carry permits and a sense among the far right after today’s verdict that they have the freedom to patrol racial-justice protests and act as vigilantes, the court system’s message couldn’t be clearer — anyone who protests against racial injustice risks taking their lives into their own hands.

No, although anyone who participates in a protest against racial injustice with the intention of liberating property or breaking things is taking that risk, and that's the way things were before Kenosha.  "Many members of the public have come to the conclusion that peaceful protesters do not carry baseball bats and fireworks, and that the Soy ISIS crowd generally do, and that having participants in Soy ISIS feeling aggressed against is probably a good thing."

It has come to this in part because public officials and Shapers of Public Opinion have given the rage mobs a free pass for too long.

Mayors and governors should ask themselves how much responsibility did they have for the chaos in . . . well, how many cities was it? Kenosha, Portland, Seattle, New York, St. Louis, . . . Isn’t their first job to protect the rights of their citizens, to work toward answers, to heal. Surely it isn’t to manufacture racial strife – and it had to be manufactured in several cases before this last, egregious one.

That's the reasoned response.  If you'd like it without nuance, go here.  "The people won and Antifa is shitting itself."  Be careful what you wish for, Rolling Stone, you just might get it.