Get PJ Media on your Apple

Unexamined Premises

Empowering the Eloi: 10 USC § 311

October 22nd, 2013 - 12:58 pm

Injured people cry for help after gunmen went on a shooting spree in a shopping centre in Nairobi

It used to be only right-wing nuts who argued that an armed society is a polite society. Now it’s the head of Interpol:

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

The secretary general, an American who previously headed up all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department, told reporters during a brief news conference that the Westgate mall attack marks what has long been seen as “an evolution in terrorism.” Instead of targets like the Pentagon and World Trade Center that now have far more security since 9/11, attackers are focusing on sites with little security that attract large numbers of people.

At least 67 were killed over a period of days at the Westgate mall, more than 60 of the dead were civilians.

And there in a nutshell is the argument currently raging in America. One side, an armed populace of exactly the kind the Founders envisaged; on the other, a fascist police state in which you’re disarmed for your own good, since the presumption is that you would use a firearm for ill, not good. It’s easy to see why the Left favors the latter, since the end result of so many of their policy prescriptions is enforcement by coercion, and they are incapable of conceiving of a “good” use for a gun in a civilian’s hands. Which is why they’ve been adamantly screaming about the “militia” clause in the Second Amendment from time immemorial.

Never mind that a distressingly high percentage of “trained law enforcement” personnel are terrible shots, or that their training these days mean more time in the “celebrating diversity” classroom than on the firing range. Sitting in their gun-free homes with ARMED RESPONSE signs posted prominently out front, Regressives imagine that when hours count, the cops or the Army are only seconds away.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The right of the People to "keep and bear arms" has been settled law for a long time. The Progressives who advocate gun control laws, and the states which prohibit the carrying of firearms by private citizens, are in violation of the Constitution.

It's as simple as that.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is another thing you can do. You can quit balkanizing socieites with indiscriminate mass immigration policies, especially when it comes to the adherents of Islam.

The most peaceful societies are homogenous. WW2 was a giant exercise in Ethnic Cleansing.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
God bless those poor souls....what animals could commit such barbaric atrocities against innocent people? Arm yourself, train yourself, ALWAYS be aware of your surroundings (situational awareness) and steel yourself to confront evil with that force necessary to protect your life and the lives of those you love. ANY and ALL 'politicians' who want to restrict your rights to "keep and bear arms" should be identified and defeated. Remember this: "It is always better to be judged by 12, than to be carried by six" - 1SG D. Henderson, Republic of Panama, December 1989

Remember BENGHAZI!
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (49)
All Comments   (49)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"they are incapable of conceiving of a “good” use for a gun in a civilian’s" hands

That's not true. They are not calling for disarmament of police. At least, not that I've ever heard. They have no problem with the police being armed.

Of course, any reasonably well-educated person knows that the police are civilians.

They are not part of the military. They are part of the civil authority. They are subject to civil laws, in contrast to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And, of course, any reasonably well-educated person knows that this distinction is not mere pedantry, but is, in fact, hugely important to the preservation of our liberty, and that the ongoing militarization of our police is a grave threat to liberty.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have harped on the notion that the States that are willing ought to form a militia, separate from the NG. Everyone between 17 & 60 ought to be required to put in a weekend a year training. A formality, sure. But I would like to stuff a sock in the left's notions about militias and the right to keep and bear. Then we can make the case for the right to keep and bear military grade weaponry. Can't we get a dozen states to climb aboard?
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
An acquaintance of mine, who is now in his early seventies, recently told me that when he was in elementary school in our small Colorado town the principle at the time would let them take their .22's to school so they could target practice at recess.

I asked him how that worked and he said; "well, we had to keep them in a rack at the front of the classroom and only got to use them at recess. of course we had to make sure they were unloaded when we came in."

When I asked him how they got their guns to school he kind of smiled and said: "On the bus of course.""

I have never heard of a school shooting that took place in that time period.

It seems they spent more time teaching responsibility than teaching political correctness in those days.

The problem isn't the guns it is the people.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
In what I hope is a forgivable error on my part, I failed to mention that Kenya is 90% Catholic and 10% Islamic.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
This article also puts paid to the idea that "...the weapons of war do not belong on our streets..." because the weapons of war are exactly what the militia were expected to bring.
My own firearms are cowboy-style. At need, though, I could put them to use until the authorities started issuing weapons and ammo.
One more to BronxZionist: the two most armed societies on the planet, the Swiss and the Israelis, commonly keep military weapons and ammunition at home. We don't need no stinkin' armory, we ARE the armory, is their position.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Indeed, our Founders, as seen in our Constitution, assumed that Joe Ordinary Citizen had access to, and liberty to use, as much military-grade weaponry as he could afford.

See the section on Letters of Marquee. Battleships. Private ownership. Treated as a given needing no comment or explanation.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Robert Heinlein's "Red Planet" touches on the idea of near-universal carry of weapons. His editor insisted on a bit about taking an oath to use weapons only for good purposes; Heinlein didn't like that but he included it.
If people are going to carry, openly or concealed, as a widespread custom, then yes, people must take seriously the responsibility of handling weapons. I don't carry, although I've considered it, and I hope I'd be as careful as I'd expect anyone else to be. That actually applies to driving, too.
Perhaps our society would gain a lot of things if open carry were to move closer to a norm. We'd probably see less fear of guns generally and less fear of people carrying them. After all, we don't panic at the sight of a car until the driver does something dangerous.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"just as they say that the Second Amendment’s subordinate clause is — perhaps uniquely in grammar — really an independent clause, thus governing the true meaning of the amendment."
Just as they say the independent citizen is really subordinate- got it?

“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh, language matters?

Yes it does.


See my comment above re: police being civilians.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Just to make sure everyone understands a bit more explicitly what the Founding Fathers had in mind regarding reference to "militia" and whether the 2nd Amendment only refers to males 17 to 45 years of age....

A few words from someone who would have an idea what was meant by the wording of that amendment (from wikipedia):

Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789, and a key anti-Federalist, writing under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".

"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
No one's arguing that the 2nd amendment applies only to males between 17 and 45; that group, however, is in the "unorganized" militia whether it likes it or not. But that category is not exclusive of others.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The article has to qualify as a standard of beauty itself.

The war to re-arm has likely been won on the Federal level. But it has not been won on the State level.

Unless a Federal Court finds that gun suppression - as opposed to regulation - by States violates the Second Amendment; then we face in the States the same fight we have fought and lost - the fight against the Left.

And this last we should understand if we are to win.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Directly related to your note and "progressive" foolishness: requiring a voter to have a photo ID, an item obtained in a few minutes for a few dollars and used for many daily activities -- this is a near-insuperable barrier to voting for poor people or people of color.
But requiring extensive training, a hefty fee, background check, long delays, frequent non-isses -- this does not "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
But requiring extensive training, a hefty fee, background check, long delays, frequent non-isses -- this does not "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms.

That should be "infringe on the right to keep and bear arms."

Language matters.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Another thing that I have often wondered is if a person is so deficient in basic life skills so as not to be able to get a picture ID, does that person have even the most elementary competency to make informed judgments on the issues of the day?

Perhaps the ability to obtain for ones self a picture ID should be the minimum standard for the right to vote.

Since one can't even buy beer without an ID that bar is not very high.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Excellent...thank you for giving me a fresh bullet for the gungrabbers.

Remember BENGHAZI!
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The militia issue is a red herring. It is presented in the 2nd amendment not as a prerequisite for having the right, but a benefit deriving from the people having that right. Yes, in an armed society is much easier to have an effective militia.

It is as if we said, "Healthy bones being good for children, the right to drink milk shall not be infringed." Only a liberal could possibly interpret that as "Only children with healthy bones can drink milk."
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It is presented in the 2nd amendment not as a prerequisite for having the right, but a benefit deriving from the people having that right."

Well said.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All