The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens — including their right to life — if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext.
Protecting the right of self-defense is just. Mandatory disarmament is not.
David French
February 24, 2014
Dear New York Times, Self-Defense Is Not Vigilantism
[In other words, as is usual, they have to lie to win.
It is the right to self-defense that is our strongest point in the debate and the one they will lose when the debate takes place in the U.S. In some other countries and cultures a reference to the right of self-defense will get a blank stare.
I would like to suggest those who find the right of self-defense incomprehensible should be encouraged to leave this country. Surely they would be more comfortable in a time and place where the government had or has a monopoly on violence such as one more of the following (from here):
- Japan’s Savage Military
- The Khmer Rouge Hell State
- Turkey’s Ethnic Purges
- The Vietnamese War State
- Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
- Pakistani Cutthroat State
- Tito’s Slaughterhouse
- North Korea
- Barbarous Mexico
- Feudal Russia
And that doesn’t even include Uganda, Nazi Germany, communist China, and Stalin’s USSR.—Joe]
Funny, my 13 year old daughter and I were discussing the difference between vigilantism and self defense last night.
Strange thing about our little talk was that she started equating vigilantes to the way super heroes work and that made them criminals. I don’t think I’d ever heard that idea put that way.
IIRC, in some comics the superhero is chased by the cops as well, Batman coming to mind, at least until they need him, but they’d really like to have him behind bars only slightly less than guys like the Joker. The military is after them in others, even if it’s only because they want them “inside the fold” in their pursuit of enemies using a government monopoly on force, and they don’t want unknown unknowns in their calculations.
I’d just never thought of them as vigilantes. That could be because I never really got into the whole superhero thing.
That’s one of the whole subplots of Watchmen.
The first “Super Heroes” (no powers, just silly costumes) were cops pissed that known criminals were getting away because they committed crimes in disguises.
Later in the 1970s super heroes were declared vigilantes, and most retired, but a few stayed active and avoided the cops.
Watchmen? Lost me… I have a vague memory of a movie by that name. IMDb say there was, so I guess my memory still works.
But I *think* I get the point.
Joe — not just Stalin’s Russia but also Putin’s.
I predict, if “shall issue” CCW holds up in California, we will see a paparazzi/celebrity 1st Amendment/self defense case that will make everyone’s head spin.
There are already numerous paparazzi/celebrity assaults. The idea of giving guns to both sides creates an interesting proposition.
Umm, Ubu, all the celebs who want to carry can get their permits.
The issue was that ordinary people were being denied simply because they weren’t famous or wealthy.
So the prediction you made should have happened already.
He’ll Sean Penn who beat up several photographers has a damn carry permit.
Yeah, but the paparazzi can’t get guns. When the two sides are equal, it’ll create an interesting dynamic.
“When the two sides are equal, it’ll create an interesting dynamic.”
I don’t believe it will end up as “interesting” as some might think. I predict if/when the two sides are equal, people will become more polite and respectful toward each other.
It’s kinda funny how equality – real equality – tends to force that change.
Because celebs and paparazzi are totally representative of society, and all laws should be based on what ubu imagines they might do in California but not in states like Idaho, Montana, Texas and Florida, etc. where many celebs have homes and gun laws are far more liberal. And of course all paparazzi in CA totally obey all gun laws all the time, because they’re that conscientious and respectful of gun laws.
I hear that the daily shoot-outs between Ted Nugent and the Texas paparazzi are legendary, except that I don’t because they don’t happen. And Sun Valley? Total war zone, except that it isn’t.
Oh yeah — what about Jon Gosselin? Didn’t he fire a warning shot at the paparazzi in Pennsylvania?
You’re the one claiming it will be something new and novel. Do the research yourself.
One guy does not a trend make. . . (Frankly, I don’t even know if Jon Gosselin did as you allege or not, or if so, what the particulars were — and frankly, I couldn;t care less. I am vaguely aware of the neame — isn’t he the guy from that reality show about him , his wife (now ex-wife), and eight kids?)
Most celebs in HollyWeird should not carry guns, not because they don’t have the right to but because they are demonstrably idiots who cannot be trusted with anything more mentally challenging then parroting lines or walking just so. There are a handful of exceptions, but on the whole… (shudder).
Some of them are already dopers who could not get a gun because they could not truthfully complete the form 4473 which asks if they are addicted to illegal drugs.
Others (IDK how many) are ex cons who can hold a gun only because of the hypocrisy of Hollywood which glorifies violence and vigilantism in action movies and condemns genuine self defense in real life.
Also, many a film has been done around “non-gun” guns, or been filmed in Canada or other foreign country (or had critical scenes filmed overseas) because the lead actor was a “prohibited person”.
Celebrities never carry — their hirelings do.
I predict that, on average, the interaction between all people gets more civil. Perhaps even polite.
For the record, parts of Mexico are getting better; look up the Fuerzas Autodefensas (Self-Defense Forces) of Michoacan. The Federales were pretty much abandoning the state to the cartels (IIRC, Los Caballeros Templarios – the “Knights Templar,” a fairly bloody cartel), until the locals got pissed off, grabbed their old single-shot shotguns and hunting rifles (which ARE still legal in Mexico, just highly regulated), organized into “militias” and armed “neighborhood watches” and started shooting back.
The Autodefensas have now “acquired” some fairly heavy weaponry, kicked the Templars out of several towns and municipalities, and essentially forced the Federales to “deputize” them in order to save face.
Some of Mexico’s people are re-discovering self-defense, and they’re kicking ass.
We can only hope such ideas spread and become highly popularized and popular.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Robert A. Heinlein | The View From North Central Idaho