We have to ban the production of guns & all war industry any nation who won’t gets sanctions and bans! Savages #PakSchoolSiege
Vindu Dara Singh @RealVinduSingh
Tweeted on December 16, 2014
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
So… in response to a terrorist attack in Pakistan… comes a demand for mass disarmerment .
And, interesting, it sounds like he wants more than baning civilians.
So… how exactly will these sanctions and bans be enforced? By definition only non complying nations will have militaries….
Man, this makes the Kellogg–Briand Pact sound sober and grounded.
Logical disconnect. We will ban all militaries! Ban war! Of course, without a military, such a ban cannot be enforced.
I believe that idea was tried already. The treaty of Versailles made it illegal for Germany to have a military beyond a small self defense force.
When Germany violated the treaty, the French and British did nothing. This treaty had clearly stated what Germany’s navy should be – no submarines and only six warships over 10,000 tons. In June 1935 the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed. This allowed Germany to have one third of the tonnage of the British navy’s surface fleet (probably the largest in the world at this time) and an equal tonnage of submarines. Why did Britain agree that Nazi Germany could break the terms of Versailles?
This event saw the start of what was to be called appeasement. It was believed that Nazi Germany would develop her navy regardless and that an official agreement between Nazi Germany and Britain would do much to foster relations between both countries.
The rest, as they say, is history.
He wants to ban guns and Pakistan has chosen to go a different route by arming the teachers after the Peshawar school massacre.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2928678/Women-trained-use-Kalashnikovs-handguns-defend-CLASSROOMS-female-teachers-taught-kill-aftermath-Pakistani-Taliban-massacre.html
I like their solution better. Kind of a barn door cow situation, but better late than never I suppose.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
A day or two ago I was reading an article (perhaps on ESR’s blog) that points out that peace through disarmament requires the unanimous cooperation of all parties, while war only requires a single warmonger.
@ Paul, a further point being that if you have that kind of cooperation between all parties, weather or not you disarm is irrelevant. If all parties desire peace, there will be peace, even if one or both spend most of their GDP on armaments. It is not the armaments that are the problem, it is the desire to conquer and control that engenders war (and yes, sometimes those desires are totally just, morally speaking. Seeking to control someone trying to harm you is not immoral).
@Derfel, exactly, and generally those who prepare better will be more successful, should they desire to be.
@The Jack, people like that never think this stuff through. They have an idea that appeals to their feelings and they will not bother to even think one or two steps down the chain. Which of course brings us to the gripping hand, where we all understand that this guy is an idiot with no understanding of cause-and-effect or how people behave. The world he wants simply cannot exist, it is a logical contradiction unto itself.
“..nation who won’t [disarm] gets sanctions and bans!”
Awesome! So we’ll disarm, and then set out specifically to piss off and agitate the ones who are still armed. That’ll turn out well.
Actually it totally works if you hate America, because it results in her certain destruction. Therefore it is a reasonable thing to say from a certain point of view, and thoroughly consistent.
Um, Mr. Singh, a call from your Guru. he wants the kirpan back.
Good one!