The idea of disarming civilians for their own good is a special kind of insanity. Whether we’re talking nations or individuals, there’s only way to achieve peace: establish the threat of mutually assured destruction. That’s it. That’s your lot. Any peace, safety and/or security we have is based on this principle. Anyone who believes that America is somehow exempt is promoting a dangerous make that deadly delusion. Read this story [via news.yahoo.com] of disarmed Kenyans slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists at the world’s oldest continually inhabited town and know this: our gun rights are the only reason it hasn’t happened/won’t happen here . . .
The assault in Mpeketoni began Sunday night as residents watched World Cup matches on TV and lasted until early Monday, with little resistance put up by Kenya’s security forces. Cars and buildings still smoldered at daybreak . . .
Like the gunmen who attacked Nairobi’s Westgate Mall last year, the Mpeketoni attackers gave life-or-death religious tests, a witness said, killing those who were not Muslim.
“They came to our house at around 8 p.m. and asked us in Swahili whether we were Muslims. My husband told them we were Christians and they shot him in the head and chest,” said Anne Gathigi.
Another resident, John Waweru, said his two brothers were killed because the attackers did not like that the brothers did not speak Somali.
My brother who stay next door to me were killed as I watched. I was peeping from my window and I clearly heard them speak to my brothers in Somali and it seems since my brothers did not meet their expectations, they sprayed them with bullets and moved on,” said Waweru.
At the Breeze View Hotel, the gunmen pulled the men aside and ordered the women to watch as they killed them, saying it was what Kenyan troops are doing to Somali men inside Somalia, a police commander said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to share such details of the attack.
Kenya’s top police commander, David Kimaiyo, said the death toll was 48. A police spokeswoman said authorities believe that several dozen attackers took part.
This is what happens to a disarmed populace. [h/t b0bb33z3r]
At some point, the other cheek is no longer going to be turned….
Remember the third (and oft omitted from hymnals) stanza of the Battle Hymn of the Republic
“I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel
As you deal with my condemners (sometime contemmers)
So with you my Grace shall deal
Let the Hero born of woman
Crush the serpent with his heel
Since God is marching on…”
Savage animals like the democrats. They won’t stop until they can kill and slaughter all of those who do not agree with their point of view.
So, what you are obviously implying is that the tens of millions of members of a mainstream American political party are mass murderers, and must be treated as such. You might want to reconsider the broadness and efficacy of your position.
Which party does our “former” moslem President belong to, you know, the President who gave a shoutout to Mohamed during his Easter greetings?
Which party does our former Secretary of State (who has a member of the Muslim Sisterhood as her Chief of Staff) belong to?
Which party does our current Secretary of State (who has just approved Hamas co-governing “palestine”) belong to?
What party is the current administration which has been penetrated by at least 6 members of the Muslim brotherhood?
@whatever, indeed, they are.
Hate to tell you whatever; they are; most of the Democrat party supports abortion. More then fifty million unborn babies have been murdered since abortion has become legal. I”d call that mass murder, if not genocide.
“But abortion isn’t murder”, democrats cry out. Umm, yeah, I’m sure all supporters of mass murder have said that about those they are committing murder against.
And if you can rationalize the murder of an unborn child; you can rationalize the mass murder of those that have survived the womb.
No actually, you can’t. And anyone with a torch to bear and a chip on the shoulder could just as easily say, “if you can rationalize the killing of a religious enemy, you could rationalize the killing of babies/children.” Both statements are equally inflammatory, but only this one is writ large in your superstition of choice.
I support abortion, as I have no problems with a woman ejecting what amounts to a non-sentient parasite from her most personal property. People who believe that I’m a murderer by proxy for not caring about a mass of fertilized eggs and seek to end my life is one of the reasons I’ve tooled up and prepared to defend my perfectly sentient life. Come to think about it, my stance really no different than the Kurds tooling up and organizing to defend themselves from ISIS thugs who think pretty much along the same lines.
And people wonder why we of the gun insist on having them.
Africa, there’s a reason as soon as our ancestors stood upright they walked out.
And this only happens in Africa? Never in Europe, Asia or the Americas? Well aren’t we just special….
It’s almost like the Bosnian War, the Georgia War and the Ukrainian War never happened. Then there were the two big events that happened in civilized Europe not all that long ago.
Yeah…this was too familiar for me.
Has happened in pretty much all of the world…Can’t change human nature.
You left out Armenia. (I know, not Europe, but related to European history)
Here is Mark Blaze, Bloomies former PR guy at MAIG, admitting that gun-control measures proposed by Everytown wont work to stop mass shootings like this.
h/t Townhall’s Katie Pavlich:
Usually the prissy elites get it first because their usefulness is no more.
I suspect they kept themselves VERY scarce. And behind armed bodyguards, perhaps.
Yep. If the African elites allow Islamofacist predation on their citizens to escalate while they hid behind their walls and count their stolen money, they will soon be in very serious trouble.
@Robert: The idea of disarming civilians for their own good is a special kind of insanity. Whether we’re talking nations or individuals, there’s only way to achieve peace: establish the threat of mutually assured destruction. That’s it. That’s your lot. Any peace, safety and/or security we have is based on this principle.
No, that’s not the principle of modern state formation, that’s the principle of ANARCHY, of a “war of all against all,” of an open civil war in which the basics of civil society are not possible. The political theory of modern Western states, especially our Anglo-American tradition, is premised on Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, on people coming together and establishing collective safety through allowing a sovereign state to establish a “monopoly of legitimate violence.” This is American Political Theory 101. This is the Founders arguing for a stronger federal state after Shays Rebellion, this is President George Washington getting on his horse to crush AND DISARM the Whiskey Rebellion.
There is no such thing as “mutually assured destruction” through individuals carry guns. If Chris Kyle couldn’t do it with his skill set, neither can you. There are no guarantees, but the low crime rates of modern Western nation states which have established state sovereignty and a monopoly of legitimate violence are the best yet discovered.The assault in Kenya happened in a state of war, an impoverished, dysfunctional state that clearly does not have a monopoly of state violence. Anyone who knows anything about Kenya would know that arming localities is a recipe for sectarianism and civil war.
Practically everything you have just wrote is a lie.
Why don’t you start with what you think is the first lie and work from there? Have you actually read any Hobbes and Locke? Are you saying that their social contract theory has absolutely nothing to do with American constitutionalism? That Washington didn’t crush the Whiskey Rebellion?
Not if he sincerely believes it, which is just precisely where many of that sort are coming from. It could be 100% wrong without being a lie.
” If Chris Kyle couldn’t do it with his skill set, neither can you.”
Kyle’s skill set was never in play. He was shot in the back.
Exactly! That’s the precise point Geoff. No one can be hyper-vigilant all the time, not even one of most lethal snipers of his generation. The acquiescence to the state for the monopoly of violence is what allows civil society to happen in the first place. Just remember that when you’re standing in line at Chipotle.
Yes, because somehow while individuals cannot be hypervigilant at all times, the government can. Great logic ya got there, kiddo. Now please go back to your meeting of the cult of the omnipotent state and leave us alone.
No, no gov’t can be hyper-vigilant, but they can ensure far greater safety than a “war of all against all” where every one is armed and not even the fastest draw (Will Bill Hickok, Jesse James) or best shot (Chris Kyle) is safe. If safety was really your primary concern, more so than living out the all-American gun fantasy, then you would live in Iceland, Japan, or Norway, the democracies with the lowest homicide rates. By comparison, check out the murder rate in New Orleans in very pro-gun Louisiana; the homicide rate is more than 170X higher.
You’re missing the point…
Vigilance had _nothing_to do with Kyle’s murder.
You were harping about his skill set, what are you too dense to understand?
In a nutshell social contract theory says that we all agree to NOT harm each other and we all agree to help each other if a large scale threat appears. Thus, we give up the “freedom” to rape, pillage, and plunder in exchange for mutual cooperation and enhanced security. The most basic principle of social contract theory comes in the centuries old (Middle English) statement An it harm none, do as ye will. In modern English, do whatever you want as long as your activity does not harm anyone. Further, we establish government to secure our rights to do anything we want without harming others. That is not anarchy.
As for your thought that government should have a monopoly of force, you do realize that the Founders of our nation were intimately familiar with Hobbes and Locke and applied their philosophy to our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, correct? And you do realize that those same Founders insisted that we have a Bill of Rights that included the Second Amendment, right? Of course you must also know about our common law legal foundation based on the principles of social contract theory as well, right?
On a more pragmatic level, there are two extremely compelling reasons for many/most of the people of the United States to be armed:
(1) To protect themselves, their neighbors, and community from thugs and organized crime when government does not (whether due to apathy, limited resources, natural disaster, corruption, etc.)
(2) To protect themselves, their neighbors, and community from their own government when that government becomes hostile to the people’s rights and well being.
In your utopia where government has a monopoly of force, there is no protection for the people if government goes bad. History shows that governments turn on their people time and time again. Absolutely nothing guarantees that our government in the U.S. cannot go bad. If that happens, no one else is going to come and rescue us: it will be up to us. That is why many/most good people should be armed.
First off, it is not my utopia. It is no one’s utopia! Social contract theory is the best option available to secure the greatest degree of common good for a nation or commonwealth. It is specifically anti-utopian, that’s just basic political theory. Second, you’ve left out the major premise of the sovereign’s authority in Hobbes:sovereign authority must enforce the terms of the contract, for “covenants without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” Sovereign authority is then established when a group of men say, “I Authorize and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of man…on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him.” This is sovereign power, or Leviathan, in which, “One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutual Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end He may use the strength and means of them all, as He shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.” This is a surrender of rights for the common good.
Thirdly, of course the Founders were aware of this! That’s why they put THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE in the Constitution. That’s why they DID NOT stick with the weak confederal system of the Article of Confederation and, after the anarchic scare of Shays rebellion, forged a much stronger federal government. Read Joseph J. Ellis’s “Founding Brothers” on the strong state and army faction around Alexander Hamilton and George Washington. And that’s why they prefaced the 2A with “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . .” and why multiple Supreme Courts did NOT find a constitutional basis for the right to bear individual arms without federal restrictions. See the NFA of 1934, or the Assault Weapons Ban. As anyone who knows the basics of Max Weber (like Virginia’s David Brat!) a monopoly of legitimate violence is a precondition for a modern state.
I don’t know what you’re smoking, but James Madison laid out the purpose of the 2nd Amendment pretty darn well in Federalist No. 46. Also, last I checked George Mason, an explicit anti-federalist, had more to do with the writing and wording of the second amendment that Washington or Hamilton did. Also, way to dredge up the good ‘ol antiquity definition of regulated debate. I will give you a hint as to the correct answer: regulated as it was written in the militia clause has noting to do with legal regulation and everything to do with being “up to regulation” in terms of preparedness and equipment.
Oh crap, you mentioned the common good. You have just made the rest of your argument about how our rights don’t mean what they say they do invalid. Its a pretty easy way to judge where someone’s coming from. Common good, progressive, common sense, no one needs *blank*. Using a weird twisted interpretation of Locke and the founders to deny what they freaking wrote. Progressive’s rewriting history to suit their reality, since otherwise it wouldn’t make sense.
Corey wrote, “I Authorize and give up my Right of Governing my selfe … This is a surrender of rights for the common good.”
No one that I know has entered into or supports the idea of a social contract where they give up their right to govern themselves; nor has anyone that I know surrendered any rights for the common good — other than the “right” to rape, pillage, and plunder.
Corey wrote, “.. a monopoly of legitimate violence is a precondition for a modern state.”
You are describing a “modern state” where both the ruling class and criminal class exploit the working class as they see fit because the working class is defenseless. You are also describing a “modern state” where any foreign state can take over and subject the people to any manner of horrors if the state’s military fails.
While that very likely describes many “modern states”, it most definitely does NOT describe the state that our Founders defined. Of equal importance, most people that I know have no interest in such a state.
@NJ GunGuy: I don’t know what you’re smoking, but James Madison laid out the purpose of the 2nd Amendment pretty darn well in Federalist No. 46.
I’m smoking history, would you like a toke? Check your timeline: Federalist #46 was written in January of 1788, the Bill of Rights (including 2A) was PROPOSED in August of 1789 and not fully ratified until 1791. Recall also that Madison wanted to carve out states rights as protection from the federal gov’t interfering with the practice of slavery. The English Bill of Rights of 1689, which Madison cited as precedent clearly allows “the Law” AND Parliament to regulate the right to bear arms, itself a military term. As Gary Wills has written, one does not “bear arms against a rabbit.”
2) Goerge Mason did not even sign the Constitution, and the weak pro-slavery confederal form of government failed . . . in 1865.
@uncommon_sense: “While that very likely describes many “modern states”, it most definitely does NOT describe the state that our Founders defined. Of equal importance, most people that I know have no interest in such a state.”
It certainly was what the Founders intended: Shays rebellion was crushed, so was the Whiskey Rebellion. This was done by the Founding Fathers in order to establish a monopoly of violence. Which side would you have been on? Does the TTAG readership even know of these historical events??!
Yes, you do have a very deep interest in living is such a state, because yesterday the Supreme Court voted, once again — and as they have in the past and certainly will in the future, to regulate gun ownership. You are still here, as is the vast majority of TTAG readership. If you guys seriously object, then what would your alternative state even look like? Somalia? Yemen?
Consider yourself schooled by uncommon sense….
I cordially invite you to test your “monopoly of legitimate violence” theory on the streets of South Central LA, Lancaster, CA, the south side of Chicago, Kenya, or the worn-torn streets of Iraq. I’ve been in 3 of 5 of those places, and I choose to be armed whether on-duty or off.
Oh, please! We’d both rather live in your American examples than fight for either crappy Islamist side in the Iraqi civil war. Or at least I would because I actually know the history of state formation: if living in a peaceful democracy is really your primary concern, then why not mention the options of Iceland, Japan, and Norway in which the homicide rate is far lower than in the US. Do you know why?
You may not understand this, so I’ll spell it out simply: Oh, please! does not constitute an argument. My invitation still stands – go live in a crime ridden sh!thole without arms of any kind. Depend upon the government for your protection. If your “argument” is so good, it should be no problem for you to practice what you preach.
As for me, I can daily practice what I also advocate. I can “walk softly and carry a big stick” through the most crime ridden parts of the United States. I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you that I’ve also been through destitute parts of Guatemala, Europe, and North Africa. You sir, are welcome to depend upon a police response time and a cell phone as your tools of self defense. Perhaps you are good at running or hiding under desks.
As someone who actually receives and travels to 911 calls, I can tell you from first hand experience that a police response takes several minutes or more. I can also tell you that lives can be lost in that time. If you choose to call an armed stranger from a distant unknown location as your means of defense, so be it. The armed intelligentsia knows the limitations of government protection even if you don’t.
” My invitation still stands – go live in a crime ridden sh!thole without arms of any kind. Depend upon the government for your protection. If your “argument” is so good, it should be no problem for you to practice what you preach.”
I do practice what I preach and you do not even understand my argument. I live in a city with very tight gun control and low crime rates, far better than the national average. I you want to live in an open carry of assault weapons society without a state “monopoly of legitimate violence” to provide as much peace as possible, then YOU should move to Mosul or Mogadishu. The US Supreme Court has just ruled for regulation of firearms and will continue to do so. Advanced industrial democracies with gun control are far safer, with lower homicide rates, than big American cities with loose gun control. Even cities like Chicago have lower homicide rates that pro-gun cities like New Orleans and St. Louis.
And if you are a LEO, then you too are part of the state’s “monopoly of LEGITIMATE violence.” You just don’t understand what the concept is. Read Max Weber’s “Politics as a Vocation” first before you find yourself arguing for anarchy.
Though I disagree with your ultimate premise, it is refreshing to see a pro gun-control advocate (I assume you support such legislation, correct me if I’m wrong) participate in an intelligent discussion on the matter.
The premise I disagree with is the monopoly of force, because if the Leviathan in which this monopoly is vested violates the contract then those who have given the Leviathan its power have no recourse. Petition is pointless, because petition will fall on deaf ears if the contract is no longer being respected by the other party (the state), because there is no consequence to their disrespect. What needs to be present is really a duopoly of power. I agree, If the citizens or many fractious groups hold too much power or can bring to bear much armed force (as in the centuries-old tribal tradition of the Middle East and Africa) you’re going to have a very hard time maintaining a democratic central government, because you don’t have two united groups holding the system together in tension. But to use this problem as a jumping-off point to the conclusion that you need a monopoly of force in the central government is not a proper way to solve the problem. What needs to happen is that the tension between the factions needs to be released, not tension between the factions and the government.
I’m going to use the Middle East as an example due to the problems arising in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the “Arab Spring” countries. You have many small factions vying for power, and each sees the ability to grab central power as the way to defeat their rivals. So they fight literally to the death in order to obtain that central authority, meanwhile the central authority they desire is never claimed because nobody respects it. Their social contract isn’t being adhered to, and neither a monopoly of force by the central government (which has been gutted) nor a “perfect competition” by the people will bring about a successful contract. In the former, the people are subject to the central authority’s ability or desire to respect the contract, and in the latter there isn’t a central authority strong enough to petition when the contract is violated.
Monopoly of force by the state certainly leads to stability and can even result in a rather pleasant society, however that is placing a level of perpetual trust in the state that I don’t think Hobbes or Locke ever intended, and certainly not the founders.
Your last statement is a dangerous one, “Monopoly of force by the state certainly leads to stability and can even result in a rather pleasant society …”
At best, when the state has a monopoly of force, the people live in a state of constant subjugation marked by continuous small scale insults to their humanity. At worst, there are frequent if not continuous full on attacks of the people from criminal or state organizations such as the case in Mexico.
The only reason a state would ever actively deny liberty to its people is when the state actively seeks to use, abuse, consume, and exploit the people. That never leads to stability.
@uncommon sense: “At best, when the state has a monopoly of force, the people live in a state of constant subjugation marked by continuous small scale insults to their humanity.At worst, there are frequent if not continuous full on attacks of the people from criminal or state organizations such as the case in Mexico.”
And here’s the very problem: you don’t know what a “monopoly of force,” is. Neither as it is used by the Founders, David Brat, or Max Weber. You need to look it up in Max Weber’s “Politics as a Vocation,” because MEXICO DOES NOT HAVE a monopoly of force. It is not a modern state, but one fragmented into narco-anarchic fiefdoms.
If you object to a modern state that has a “monopoly of legitimate violence,” then what is your alternative? Somalia? Yemen?
I agree that the avenue and condition of stability gained through central control, popular disenfranchisement, and lack of rights/liberty among the people is not ideal and should not be placed as a desirable model of law and order But you can’t argue effectively that it isn’t stable and orderly.
@Errant Venture11: Their social contract isn’t being adhered to, and neither a monopoly of force by the central government (which has been gutted) nor a “perfect competition” by the people will bring about a successful contract. In the former, the people are subject to the central authority’s ability or desire to respect the contract, and in the latter there isn’t a central authority strong enough to petition when the contract is violated.
What social contract? There ARE NO SOCIAL CONTRACT STATES IN THE MIDDLE EAST! They are either military dictatorships like Egypt, monarchies like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, open civil war states like Syria and Iraq, or the one example of a Herrenvolk democracy that excludes the majority of Arab citizens on its territory: Israel.
Monopoly of force by the state certainly leads to stability and can even result in a rather pleasant society, however that is placing a level of perpetual trust in the state that I don’t think Hobbes or Locke ever intended, and certainly not the founders.
No student who’s actually read Hobbes or Locke would write this. You have not read Hobbes or Locke. Here’s the problem with TTAG: the vast majority of its readers don’t know the basics of American political thought and our political traditions. They are right-wing anarchists who only believe in a movie version of the Western frontier.
And here’s the problem with TTAG’s critics: They are left-wing statists who believe all of TTAGs’s readers are right-wing anarchists who only believe in a movie version of the Western frontier.
You’re not helping your case.
I’m not a student of Hobbes or Locke any more than I’m a student of von Mises, Marx, Hamilton, Paine, etc…
My profession is engineering and my passion is Christ. Anything outside these realms is a tertiary consideration, and I devote an appropriate amount of time to these tertiary concerns. That is, far less than is devoted to these other concerns. I’ve read Leviathan and I found it to be a laying out of why we form governments, not necessarily an endorsement of certain forms thereof. But then again, I read Leviathan about 8 years ago, and I’ve not read more of his work.
Clearly you fancy yourself a student of Hobbes and Locke, and you may very well be. You’re probably more of an authority on them than I am, but then again this is the internet. I could build myself up to be an authority on NVH and differential design if I read and regurgitate enough material from textbooks and other sources, but recitation does not imply understanding. And when it comes to the social sciences, understanding has a high degree of interpretive license, unfortunately.
As for the social contract, my example was taking it to the basic level of the people giving up self-rule and some rights in order that a larger force would rule over them in some fashion. IE, acquiescing to some form of government. I agree that any form of social contract in the middle east is torn and tattered at best, but at the foundation you still have people willing to submit to a governing authority. The problem is that you have disparate groups fighting so hard over the terms of the contract, or really the right to be the ones writing it, that the pages are being shredded.
You wrote, “Any peace, safety and/or security we have is based on this principle,” speaking of mutually assured destruction. No, sorry, that is incorrect. MAD isn’t peace; MAD is lack of war. Peace is more about getting along agreeably with your neighbor.
And the article: it is horribly written, with words missing. Your English teacher would be horrified.
Congratulations on writing five sentences with perfect grammar.
Don’t know whether you are being sarcastic but he has a point. MAD isn’t peace, it leads to paranoia. Paranoia leads to eventual f***ups.
Difference between being prepared and being paranoid.
I agree with you regarding the pressure and paranoia induced by the Cold War definition of MAD. But does anyone seriously think he means it in that context, rather than just borrowing the term. Surely when you apply MAD to the relationship between the criminal elements and the law-abiding elements of a society, the term takes on new meaning with the contextual change. That is to say that criminals fearing the risk of death at the hands of their would be victims has a deterrent effect on crime, much the same way as a nuclear holocaust has a deterrent effect on the use of nuclear arms. Its a reasonable comparison in this sense.
True, but I ain’t armed to scare criminals from attacking me. I am armed to stop a criminal IF he attacks me.
Though it is a good comparison, I’ll give you that.
The story of what happened in Mpeketoni, Kenya yesterday should serve as a clarion call to the whole world of what we are to face in the future. Over the past few days the ISIS fighters in Iraq summarily executed a reported 1,700 Iraqi Army and Police captives some just on the “suspicion” they were Army or Police. Although this figure is not verified, there is ample photo/video evidence to show that large numbers Of Iraqis were slaughtered. This does not take anything away from the 48 Kenyans murdered in Mpeketoni.
This is a foe who regards EVERYONE else with psychopathic hostility and murderous intent. Their “solution” for anyone not of their particular sect is immediate, merciless extermination.
The rest of the World is neither mentally, nor emotionally prepared to deal with them. Those who, like these Kenyans, are not Armed effectively to defend themselves are subject to slaughter. The rest of us had better get all this through our heads and through the heads of our Governments ASAP, or else thousands will die needlessly before we understand the simple fact that there is no dealing with these people because they are determined to impose their brand of Islam and Sharia Law on everyone else, no exceptions and no quarter granted. They are not interested in “converts”. They have no concept of “tolerance” as we do. They are savages of an order, not seen in this World for centuries.
To address the topic of this post more directly, obviously not only were the Kenyan victims disarmed, but they were taken unawares by people appearing, asking questions, then suddenly shooting them to death when they gave the “wrong” answer. (Maybe in that part of the World, having armed men appear at your door, or accost you in public is not as unusual as we would view it. Insufficient data). So, yes, THIS is what what happens to a disarmed Populous…caveat legens.
DerryM wrote, “The rest of the World is neither mentally, nor emotionally prepared to deal with them.”
This is the key. And the very fact that everyone automatically dismisses such a possibility is what makes it possible. I wish I knew what it takes to get our nation to take notice.
uncommon_sense wrote: ” I wish I knew what it takes to get our nation to take notice.”
Personally, I expect we will find-out in the next few weeks. Unfortunately, I have little faith in this feckless and passive Administration’s capacity to fully understand, much less deal effectively, with this foe. It may require a grimness of heart they simply cannot comprehend. This may finally bring into the sharpest focus the utter incompetence and vacuousness of Obama’s “leadership” at the cost of many Iraqi and possibly some American lives. We may have to bear witness to atrocities rivaling any in recorded history “to get our nation to take notice”.
“They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads…..cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan”, John Kerry, Aprill 22nd, 1971.
Finally, Secretary Kerry’s violence fantasies come true. Unfortunately, it’s being done on his watch and he can’t slander Americans this time.
The only way people will be ready and take notice is if something like this happens to them, though that isn’t a guarantee.
Just ask Jews, Bosnians, Rwandans, Chechens and other people with similar experiences and you will understand what I mean.
I understand what you are saying. I had in mind a few you missed: the Armenians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Chinese (both at the hands of Imperial Japan and later the Maoists), the purges of the Stalinist Soviet Union and the Hutus…the list could go on.
Many of the past genocides were not known until after they happened and regionally and politically/socially confined. This time we are seeing it happen in “real time” and those committing the atrocities are literally gloating about it to the World, declaring their intentions openly and vowing to impose their will on the rest of us. We dare not be complacent about stopping them. This is somewhat like the proverbial extraterrestrial invasion where nobody can consider themselves safe, and everyone has a very real stake in the outcome.
I know about those too, just didn’t want to make a list.
Personally, I am disappointed how nobody cares, not only the US but Europe, Africa, Asia, all of them. Proves me right again in not trusting/expecting people to help.
“They just close the door so they don’t see the dead… and pinch their own noses so as to not smell the dead”
Yeah I was not into making a long list, either.
I understand your disappointment. I think this time people will find-out they have to care or the next thing they know they, or their children, or their friends will be the next victims of the day. I think ISIS’s opinion of how far they can take this is greatly overblown, but their capacity to inflict suffering and death can reach far and wide. Question is how many lives will be forfeit before everybody figures it out.
Our nation will do nothing until there is no food on the table and no reality TV to rot their brains.
Bread and circuses — it was the downfall of the Roman Empire.
“know this: our gun rights are the only reason it hasn’t happened/won’t happen here . . .”
My boss and I were kicked back last Friday afternoon running out the clock. Just talking about nothing really, throwing sentences back and forth at each other.
I said that to him. He laughed at me. He’s a smart guy and respectful and even though he didn’t agree at all, he didn’t call me an idiot for saying what I did.
I believe that with all my heart.
Islam, the “religion of peace” murdering Christians. Again. It’s become politically incorrect to even speak of such things, but there it is. Well, I’ve sold my cloak to buy a few swords, so to speak.
I don’t blame you one bit. I personally know people who have seen this administration’s redline in Syria get trampled, seen us abandon the Ukraine, who specifically disarmed themselves of nukes based on our assurance of their security, and who have seen China’s navy chase the Philippines’ navy out of international waters, despite our defense treaty with the Philippines, and explicitly concluded from it all that this administration has squandered our credibility with adversaries and made us less safe. So they’ve stocked up on new firearms and ammunition in their households, too.
No, there’s also taking away the fuel for the fire, in an extreme case making a desert and calling it peace. If you clear away potential threats you have fewer of them to head off.
To have the threat of mutually assured destruction you have to have capability first. Otherwise you’d be some kind of joke drawing red lines and getting laughed at as other world leaders piss on them. Its the same path, you are just a couple steps further up after all credibility of capability is lost causing you to resort to turning sand into glass. Taking away the ability to make credible threats leaves only destruction, there can be no peace.
Permanent peace is unattainable. Given we have free will there will always be someone who doesn’t play by the rules. Or if there isn’t now there can be at any time in the future.
Knowing this, you can discourage things like crime and oppression and war by making them unappealing. Yes there are other ways too. Like providing easier alternatives to harming others, but we tend to follow the path of least resistance.
By having an armed population, oppression is no longer the path of least resistance. Perhaps don’t view it as mutually assured destruction, just see it as what’s easy and what isn’t. For example, telling lies about gun violence and being deceiving with statistics is easier than reducing violence, hence why gun control groups do it.
Given that human beings are imperfect it then logically follows that any system we create cannot function perfectly. So if you create a system where all power is concentrated in one place and/or group, it is then logical that this power will one day be abused. Safeguards are needed.
Having a constitution and rights and agreements are all well and good but the only thing that will actually keep people safe in the end is the physical ability to keep themselves safe. If you give one group all the power and tell it to regulate itself you just know nothing good can come of that. And we see it happening in all the corruption and lies and coverups and rights violations.
That is one of the best, most succinct explanations I have ever read. Bravo sir!
There are many who believe that people are fundamentally good. Given enough resources and education, they will make responsible choices and create wonderful societies. There are certainly a quantity of property crimes that can be attributed to poverty and desperation.
I don’t subscribe to that nonsense. We have highly educated people with access to abundant resources who are still evil. Many of them are politicians. Societies across this nation and across the world will have the marks of evil action because violence is integral to the human condition. Certainly not all people are violent. Many people choose peace. If it were not so, anarchy would exist. Yet if one person in one thousand commits a murder, or leads others in the commission of murder, than violence will always be with us. History clearly indicates that violence in society has never left us.
RF? This is what happens when “civility” reigns. Citizens become chattel of the State and are murdered en-mass by whatever group of scum decides they don’t want to obey those oh, so “civil” constraints. Why? Because the “civil” citizens surrendered their rights and arms so they could be proclaimed as being “civil” by the leftist media and intellectuals.
Kenya had a very stable and effective government for a long time. Problem is it kept moving leftward in order to be “civil”. And now we see the results.
One of the great and shining lies of the modern age is that “Islam is a religion of peace.” I might have voted for Geo. W. Bush in 2000 (as a man of science, there was no possible way to vote for the new-age quack Al Gore Jr.), but I became mad at Bush after he started peddling this monstrous lie of “Islam is a religion of peace” right after 9/11.
The hard, bitter truth is that Islam is a religion of slaughter, rape, pillage, conquest and slavery.
The history of Islam is rife with much larger slaughters than the above. The history of Jews living in or near the borders of Dar al Islam is littered with one slaughter/progrom after another. Recently, one can look to the genocide of Armenians by the Turks to see how Islam treats non-believers in large-scale killings. Look to the actions of Muslims in Nazi SS divisions in WWII to see how they acted in more modern times.
Religion of peace? Sure, it is. If you’re Muslim and you live in Dar al Islam, you’re all set.
If you live in the rest of the world that is called Dar al Harb, the above is what you can expect.
If you’re not a Muslim and you’re living in an Islamic state, you’re a dhimmi and if the Islamic leaders are very “progressive” (from their perspective), you might be allowed to live with restricted rights for only so long as you pay the tax for not being a believer, the jizyah.
People would do well to study the history of the Islamic incursion and battles of conquest in Europe from, oh, 1066 to 1700. The above savagery is just par for the course.
It isn’t “extremist Islam” and it isn’t new. It is just Islam being Islam.
What do we do about it?
Well, for starters we should pimp-slap anyone and everyone who utters such nonsense as “Islam is a religion of peace.” Stop that BS. Tell the truth.
And when the mullahs stir up the crazies to riot in the streets, instead of being scared of these reactions, use them as evidence to support our case.
The first step in solving a problem is admitting that there is a problem. The multi-cultural leftists need to be slammed face-first into the hard reality of the situation and discredited.
Obama’s excuse for this, and why the US doesn’t need guns, will conveniently be: they’re not a “developed” or “advanced” country “like America.”