Ideologies v. Guns, and Hope as a Strategy

It is good to know that leftist logic never changes.  

A quote from President Obama yesterday, that would have been right at home in protests of the 1960's....

"...in order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al Qaeda it's going to also require us to discredit their ideology -- the twisted thinking that draws vulnerable people into their ranks.  As I’ve said before -- and I know our military leaders agree -- this broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort.  Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they’re defeated by better ideas..."

Hmmm, are we sure about that?

http://www.protestwarrior.com

Now, yes, evil ideologies must be supplanted by better ideas, but most times that supplanting must be done at the point of a gun.  Those nasty evil guns....and lots of soldiers with guns, occupying enemy territory, and delivering defeat.

"Know what really discredits ideologies? Unconditional surrender, occupying their capitals, wrecking their cities, defeating their armies." - @20Committee

To use a time tested maxim, "Hope is not a strategy".  And "No Boots on-the-Ground" is not a winning strategy either.  

Better ideas can't retake Ramadi.  Better ideas can't retake Mosul.  And better ideas can't defeat ISIL.

Not on their own.  Our better ideas require guns to conquer the evil ideas that are washing over the landscape unabated.

Evil ideologies are not just defeated with guns, they’re defeated by better ideas backed by the threat, even the use, of guns.  The sooner the President realizes that, the better.

Dear Brett Kimberlin...

I won't be moving to an undisclosed location....

(No slight intended to the esteemed Robert Stacy McCain, who obviously felt the actual threat required such action.  I just saw the picture in my blog history, and the idea popped into my head...)

Praise the Blogger and Pass the Ammunition!

Well, Glenn Reynolds is always warning that it is a bad idea to pick on bloggers....



...now it is not even safe to do from a long distance!

Heller Brings out Hysterical Ignorance

Now I am not a big gun advocate. I don't own any, but I currently carry one or two everyday due to my current deployment, and I know how to use them.

However, I do know idiocy on guns when I hear it. And we are hearing plenty of it now in the aftermath of the Heller case concerning gun ownership in D.C.

One such display of ignorance can be found in the Washington Post, courtesy of Colbert King.

King says:

"If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it's probably the fact that five of the justices -- a slim majority, but that's all it takes to win -- have come around to seeing things their way."

and

"The court's ruling doesn't affect the dudes who have been blowing away their fellow citizens for three decades."

Unfortunately Mr. King does not realize that he is actually making the case for Heller with his argument.

Perhaps he has heard the old adage, "If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns." This has been the reality for DC residents, as King points out, for 3 decades. But not because of gun ownership (since it does not exist), but because of the very gun control that Mr. King would like to see continue. That he is unable to make this logical connection is disturbing.

The bottom line is that people who think like King don't realize that there is a huge difference between gun OWNERS and criminals who POSSESS guns. Gun Control always restricts ownership, but never has any significant effect on the gun violence which is perpetrated by the criminals who are already possessing their guns illegally. More and stricter gun laws usually only ever affect the law abiding, and not the law breakers.

As for Mr. King's assertion that the Heller case will have no effect on "the dudes" who have been spilling blood in DC for years, perhaps he should consider this. If you are a thug/dude who has been terrorizing your local populace because you knew that the innocent among them can do nothing to defnd themselves, you can pretty much act with impunity. But if you are that same thug, and you are faced with the prospect that one of your law abiding fellow citizens might legally have a gun in his home, or perhaps tucked in his belt, you might definitely have second thoughts about how or if you conduct your reign of terror.

King ends his column with the refrain: "...the NRA has taken aim at San Francisco and Chicago. See what we have unleashed, D.C.? America, more body bags, please." Perhaps he should take a few minutes to ruminate on why it is that the cities with the strictest gun control laws have been the ones that have been filling the body bags already, and those with stronger guns rights tend to have less violence.

Guns? What Guns?

Bob of Confederate Yankee by way of Pajamas Media, points out the plight of a city ravaged by Gun Control laws.

Fifty-four shootings in two weekends. Shot-up bodies recovered in groups of three and five. Is this Ramadi? Basra? No.

Welcome to Chicago.

I will revise and extend the remarks I made after the first weekend of violence in Chicago (This was in an email to Instapundit which he kindly chose to publish):

This violence really should be no surprise, since Chicago and Illinois itself have been failing to reach their political benchmarks for years now.

It is too bad there was not some powerful politician who might have served the Chicago area and brought them Change and Hope. If there was, we could blame him for the "complete failure" to achieve those political benchmarks and reduce sectarian strife.

'Our Best Interests'

As usual, Mark Steyn does the best job of pointing out the idiocracy of the liberal view of what is in the best interests of this country:

"Obama and far too many Democrats have bought into this delusion, most thoroughly distilled in Thomas Frank's book "What's The Matter With Kansas?", whose argument is that heartland voters are too dumb (i.e., "moronic muppets") to vote for their own best interests.

Europeans did "vote for their own best interests" – i.e., cradle-to-grave welfare, 35-hour workweeks, six weeks of paid vacation, etc. – and as a result they now face a perfect storm of unsustainable entitlements, economic stagnation and declining human capital that's left them so demographically beholden to unassimilable levels of immigration that they're being remorselessly Islamized with every passing day. We should thank God (forgive the expression) that America's loser gun nuts don't share the same sophisticated rational calculation of "their best interests" as do Thomas Frank, Obama, too many Democrats and the European political establishment.

Had this view of "our best interests" been prevelant 232 years ago, then perhaps we would still bebe sending our taxes to London rather than Washington.

In short, this upcoming election is really about whther we want to continue being the US of A, or whether we desire to be the European Union.

Let It Begin Here

"Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

232 years ago, a group of bitter men clung to their guns and religion, driven by their antipathy towards people who weren't like them. It the end, I think it worked out OK.
[Update: Someone has pointed out that this was actually 233 years ago. They are of course correct. Ironically, I had done the math correctly, as the year that was running around in my head was 1776...instead of 1775. Damn that public school education....]



For a more than complete send up of this historic event, please go and read Jules Crittendon's posting, 'April Morning'.

To this day, the man below stands resolute, clinging to his gun, under the flag of a free and democratic country.

Apples & Trigger Locks

Confederate Yankee and Instapundit point out a fun Reuters article about gun collectors. It includes this graph:

The American affinity for guns may puzzle foreigners who link high ownership rates and liberal gun ownership laws to the 84 gun deaths and 34 gun homicides that occur in the United States each day and wonder why gun control is not an issue in the U.S. presidential election.

The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors.

Now Gun Control advocates *love* to mix Apples and Oranges. In other words, mixing the criminals in with the legitimate gun owners, so that they can tar & feather the entire issue with the crimes of the former to obscure the lack of crimes by the latter.

I am willing to assume that the phrase "owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers" is due more to the reporter's ignorance than to any deliberate attempt to mix those apples and oranges. In that spirit, I would like to point out to said reporter that 99% of the time criminals and drug dealers are not "gun owners", they are "gun possessors". There is a difference.

Legitimate gun owners and collectors actually legally purchase their weapons, and are in an entirely different category than those who come by their weapons through illegal commerce or theft, and possess them for the express reason to assist in the commission of other crimes.

In the future, please do not lump them together.

It is kind of like mixing together Governors who go home to their families, and Governors who hire prostitutes.....

Apples and Oranges.