Two hostages who died in the siege in Sydney were hailed as heroes for sacrificing themselves. It is the best that emerges in our selfless sacrifice in such moments.
But how much better would it have been if those heroes had been armed when the siege began and could have saved themselves and others through quick self-defence action? This is where all the anti-gun rhetoric fails; when it disarms the law-abiding to make them helpless in the face of those who will never obey the law. So it leads them to hear such stories and opine that all guns should be banned, it leads them to ask why this Muslim madman was not in jail for the many crimes with which he is accused. It leads me to ask why could the unfortunate hostages not protect themselves, why were they disarmed?
So, yes, we end up with jerk-offs like the plant Mike the Gun Guy (give me a break) on Huffington Post, making big deals of small numbers of concealed carriers who may commit crimes (I am not as keen as he is on taking the numbers from the Violence Policy Center for granted). Their answer - make firearms the purview of the unlawful and make the rest of us victims in waiting.
Not going to happen; Mike the Gun Guy, Vivik Murthy, Barack Obama, and anyone else can say as they will; They can choose to be defenseless if they like, but not for me. I will never give up my right to defend myself with all the force necessary as I see fit. I will not be held on my knees in a coffee shop by a Muslim adman.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Friday, December 12, 2014
Taking us down a treacherous path
Perhaps it is not a surprise, given the notion that many hold that we are not citizens of our nation, but global citizens, that we are walking a dangerous path. The inescapable conclusion is that, whether consciously or unintentionally, liberals are defining a foolhardy worldview that will lead to the end of the nation that has allowed them the right to promulgate their foolishness.
This is probably nowhere brought into clearer relief than in the recent torture debate. How many people may have vanished or been vanquished for the belief that we must fight a moral fight, that we must be kind to enemies who would destroy us? How dangerous is the fairy tale that treating others in humane ways that they would not treat us will somehow insure our survival? It leads to capitulation, not cooperation.
The bizarre kabuki theater in all of this is those who are now screaming most loudly about torture are those who cried most vociferously for someone, anyone, to defend them in whatever ways were necessary. Oh, the luxury of being safe in your bed, pulling the covers over your head and letting others fight the fight that keeps you safe.
There is little doubt that Jack Nicholson's tirade as COL Nathan Jessup was meant by liberals to be an awful and critical caricature of the mindset of those we task to protect us, making them look inhuman. Still, the kernel of truth is there.
Weasels, cowards, blowhards, self-righteous politicians and pundits, cowering in their hallowed halls, pushing others out in front of them like human shields, seeking only their own safety and security, later criticizing the means whereby those they task do their work. They should all pick up a weapon and stand a post or STFU. They want rights and freedoms but lack the courage to defend them.
But this is the view of those who would blame themselves for others' misbehavior; crime, riots, and other lawlessness are the fault of those who have not decided to support the "less fortunate". Terrorism and discontent are our own fault. This is where they decide, in the name of some amorphous philosophy, to turn their fate over to those who would kill them with no thought. This is where there notion of diversity and cultural sensitivity fails. Quite simply their notion that all have won and all must have prizes will lead to their own culture being overrun and decimated in favor of other, less charitable cultures.
This is not an issue of ethnocentricity, that our culture is better and another worse. it is an issue of survival and an ideology that allows murderous, dictatorial cultures to whom the notions of freedom and rights is anathema to flourish and eventually gain precedence, will be ground under. these cultures do not have a Bill of Rights, there is no freedom of speech or religion, there is only submission.
This is probably nowhere brought into clearer relief than in the recent torture debate. How many people may have vanished or been vanquished for the belief that we must fight a moral fight, that we must be kind to enemies who would destroy us? How dangerous is the fairy tale that treating others in humane ways that they would not treat us will somehow insure our survival? It leads to capitulation, not cooperation.
The bizarre kabuki theater in all of this is those who are now screaming most loudly about torture are those who cried most vociferously for someone, anyone, to defend them in whatever ways were necessary. Oh, the luxury of being safe in your bed, pulling the covers over your head and letting others fight the fight that keeps you safe.
There is little doubt that Jack Nicholson's tirade as COL Nathan Jessup was meant by liberals to be an awful and critical caricature of the mindset of those we task to protect us, making them look inhuman. Still, the kernel of truth is there.
Weasels, cowards, blowhards, self-righteous politicians and pundits, cowering in their hallowed halls, pushing others out in front of them like human shields, seeking only their own safety and security, later criticizing the means whereby those they task do their work. They should all pick up a weapon and stand a post or STFU. They want rights and freedoms but lack the courage to defend them.
But this is the view of those who would blame themselves for others' misbehavior; crime, riots, and other lawlessness are the fault of those who have not decided to support the "less fortunate". Terrorism and discontent are our own fault. This is where they decide, in the name of some amorphous philosophy, to turn their fate over to those who would kill them with no thought. This is where there notion of diversity and cultural sensitivity fails. Quite simply their notion that all have won and all must have prizes will lead to their own culture being overrun and decimated in favor of other, less charitable cultures.
This is not an issue of ethnocentricity, that our culture is better and another worse. it is an issue of survival and an ideology that allows murderous, dictatorial cultures to whom the notions of freedom and rights is anathema to flourish and eventually gain precedence, will be ground under. these cultures do not have a Bill of Rights, there is no freedom of speech or religion, there is only submission.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Foolhardy conflation
It is foolish for people to conflate the two refusals to indict LEOs in the recent deaths in Missouri and New York. I suspect that if I have to explain why, you would not listen anyway.
But let's be clear - one protest is justified, one is not.
Michael Brown was killed by an individual defending himself. It could have happened just as it did, whether the shooter was a LEO or an armed citizen, being attacked and defending himself. The evidence supports the determination; this was a tragic, but justified homicide. Garner was killed for no such reason, with no such justification. This would be murder if it were committed by a citizen and so it should be when committed by an LEO.
So there is your standard;
- Defending one's self from a threat that could be reasonably assumed to be lethal is a justification for using lethal force in defense. Brown, a larger man was assaulting another person. Whether it was Wilson or anyone else in this scenario, Brown's death was justified by his actions. If a civilian would be justified committing this self-defense shooting, then so is a LEO.
- If Garner's death resulted from a civilian attack then it would be murder - there was lethal threat and no need to use lethal force, no justification. Hence, it was illegal and unnecessary. The only possible and totally misguided justification for it was that it was committed by a NYPD officer. That is no justification at all.
It is foolish and manipulative to conflate the two cases. Only those who are using Brown's tragic but justified death for their own purposes would do so.
But let's be clear - one protest is justified, one is not.
Michael Brown was killed by an individual defending himself. It could have happened just as it did, whether the shooter was a LEO or an armed citizen, being attacked and defending himself. The evidence supports the determination; this was a tragic, but justified homicide. Garner was killed for no such reason, with no such justification. This would be murder if it were committed by a citizen and so it should be when committed by an LEO.
So there is your standard;
- Defending one's self from a threat that could be reasonably assumed to be lethal is a justification for using lethal force in defense. Brown, a larger man was assaulting another person. Whether it was Wilson or anyone else in this scenario, Brown's death was justified by his actions. If a civilian would be justified committing this self-defense shooting, then so is a LEO.
- If Garner's death resulted from a civilian attack then it would be murder - there was lethal threat and no need to use lethal force, no justification. Hence, it was illegal and unnecessary. The only possible and totally misguided justification for it was that it was committed by a NYPD officer. That is no justification at all.
It is foolish and manipulative to conflate the two cases. Only those who are using Brown's tragic but justified death for their own purposes would do so.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Running over Protesters, V.2
So, there it is - the modern Missouri version of Reginald Denny.
"Begic was in his vehicle in the 4200 block of Itaska in the early hours of Sunday when the teens advanced on him and began damaging the car, police said. After Begic exited the car, the teens started beating him with hammers. Begic was taken to St. Louis University Medical Center where he was pronounced dead. He had injuries to his head, abdomen, face and mouth, the Post-Dispatch reported."
Note - they are "teens" - not black or Hispanic teens (although they are). White cop kills black teen - color is everywhere. But here a 32-year-old Bosnian man is killed by thugs with hammers. No one mentions race. No one will be say this was in retaliation. No one will say it is racist or a hate crime when a white male is attacked and killed for no reason other than his whiteness by teenage thugs-of-color.
Folks - he was white, they were not. If he had driven over a couple of them, his whiteness and their color would have been critical information - central to the slaughter of innocent young men. He doesn't defend himself against such disparity of force and they beat him death. He's Bosnian and they are teens. Go figure; move long race-baiters, nothing to see here. Haven't seen the President, who loves to use race as a tool, condemn this one yet. Either race matters or it does not.
"Begic was in his vehicle in the 4200 block of Itaska in the early hours of Sunday when the teens advanced on him and began damaging the car, police said. After Begic exited the car, the teens started beating him with hammers. Begic was taken to St. Louis University Medical Center where he was pronounced dead. He had injuries to his head, abdomen, face and mouth, the Post-Dispatch reported."
Note - they are "teens" - not black or Hispanic teens (although they are). White cop kills black teen - color is everywhere. But here a 32-year-old Bosnian man is killed by thugs with hammers. No one mentions race. No one will be say this was in retaliation. No one will say it is racist or a hate crime when a white male is attacked and killed for no reason other than his whiteness by teenage thugs-of-color.
Folks - he was white, they were not. If he had driven over a couple of them, his whiteness and their color would have been critical information - central to the slaughter of innocent young men. He doesn't defend himself against such disparity of force and they beat him death. He's Bosnian and they are teens. Go figure; move long race-baiters, nothing to see here. Haven't seen the President, who loves to use race as a tool, condemn this one yet. Either race matters or it does not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)