The following is from Chicago so in some respects it’s understandable:
What is missing in the court’s decision and all the glee among its supporters is
recognition that this ruling accentuates and legitimizes and further establishes
our violent character as a nation. Its premise is that violence is best met with
and countered by violence, that the best way to fend off a violent attack is to
practice violence in turn, including lethal violence. It clearly supposes that
the way to reduce violence is to increase the capacity and means to inflict it.
Moreover, it authorizes the privatization of state-sanctioned violence; each can
now be given the requisite permission to own and carry—and in certain
circumstances, use—a firearm to injure or take the life of another.
Are there any facts from anywhere, anytime, on this planet that counter the claim “violence is best met with
and countered by violence, that the best way to fend off a violent attack is to
practice violence in turn, including lethal violence”?
As far as I can determine this has been an immutable law of nature for about a billion years. For this guy to assume, without any supporting data whatsoever, something different and to expect everyone else to just nod their heads in agreement is arrogance or ignorance on a scale that is seldom seen outside of government.
The Reverend apparently is unaware of the fact that Chicago is an anomaly. Why is it we don’t have the problems he says will occur in states that don’t ban home possession of firearms? Even states with strict gun control laws? Firearms held for self-defense doesn’t appear to be generating a bloodbath in those places so why would it suddenly in Chicago?
Peace loving citizens sometimes need to defend themselves from those who would deprive them of such peace. If, for no other reason, than they want to at that particular time.
In such cases, the law abiding and peace loving revert to human nature, unchanged in eons. As Jeff Cooper so eloquently put it: “that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”.
As far as I can determine this has been an immutable law of nature for about a billion years
I can only find one example of a non-violent response in nature… but it’s not all that appealing.
He says that like it’s a bad thing.
Responding to violence with non-violence works great if this is what you’re looking for an end result.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/trakblue/RwHJdiZQW5I/AAAAAAAACsg/-T5UGrc5Rp4/myanmar+monk%5B4%5D.jpg
I in no way mean this as an insult to the above monk. He believes he is in a better place now because he did not resort to violence.
I do not share his belief, and while I respect his faith, its my personal belief that he was foolish and wasted much of the good his life would have given the world had he resisted the tyranny that ended his life.
I’m not going out that way.
Since Chicago has already tried the state monopoly on violence by using armed police to counter criminal acts of violence, and since it’s failed abysmally, what are this guy’s solutions? Clergy Commandos to go in and talk it over with the assailant in an attempt to get them to change their ways?
Yeah, violence is the solution to violence. Geez, humanity’s the top dog on the food chain for a reason. We render other species extinct by accident, just by being our charming selves. But unless this rodeo clown has a better solution, he shouldn’t really expect people to take it seriously.
Maybe the Chicago city fathers should mandate guitar lessons and mandatory Kum-Bah-Ya songfests throughout the city to keep tensions low and to enhance happy feelings. That should work.
Considering this idiot’s rhetoric and attitude, I would just LOVE to be in this asshat’s home when an armed burgler breaks in and threatens the life of him & his family. I wouldn’t stop the burgler, just watch as this idiot changes his mind REAL QUICK — or dies.
Maybe we’ll be lucky and he hasn’t had any children to pass his Stupid genes along to.