treelizard

I just found this article and I like it a lot.

http://www.coastalpost.com/98/1/18.htm

The Coastal Post - January, 1998

Violence Solves A Lot
BY KIRBY FERRIS

One of the more insidiously deceptive lines of the socialist-liberal agenda is the banal phrase: "Violence doesn't solve anything." How much retrospection is required to understand that Hitler wasn't stopped by peace marches, negotiations, or "conflict resolution" sessions. It is a horrible, disgusting task, but evil acts, whatever shape they take, must eventually be countered by a superior, violent force.

The liberal doesn't seem to understand that the threat of counter violence is perhaps the most effective preventative of actual physical conflict. Liberal pacifists in modern times mocked the phrase "peace through strength" as though the pragmatism contained within such an idea were rooted in some atavistic, macho, testosterone-poisoned psychosis that had been propagated by alpha males throughout history.

Can't the liberal understand that bad people are prevented from committing evil acts by their fear of punishment? Perhaps at a childhood level, the threat of adult disapproval or the disapproval of one's schoolyard peers keeps the behavior of the youngster in some kind of conformity to morality. But it doesn't take long for the criminally-minded teenager to realize that he really doesn't care what other people think. Crime pays. Evil is profitable. Bullying works. Unless, that is, you are harshly confronted with the realization that your malicious behavior will be rewarded by a beating, a bullet, or a prison cell.

A peaceful, free society, of which America (even with its flaws) is the most outstanding example in all of recorded history, is preserved by the willingness of its people, either singly or as a group, to commit decisive acts of righteous violence to counter evil activity.

Hebrew experts now declare that one of the Ten Commandments has been mistranslated. "Thou shalt not kill" is more accurately translated from the ancient Hebrew as "Thou shalt not murder." The punishment for murder in ancient Israelite communities was stoning. Murderers were killed by the citizens. They were executed. And stoning was the most effective way to spread the responsibility for the execution through the mass of individuals who were willing to pay the price for living in a peaceful, moral society. Because of its face-to-face horror, the compassionate individual would, one might imagine, actually cast the first stone...to make sure it knocked the murderer immediately unconscious, in much the same way the ethical hunter or fisherman puts his quarry out of its misery as quickly as possible. The ancient Hebrews forced personal responsibility on each individual via the group act of stoning.

It comes down to individual responsibility. It comes down to the individual being willing to act with violence when confronted by certain criminal behaviors. How many of your would idly stand by and watch a man torture a helpless pup? You would first yell at him to stop. If he continued, you might grab at him or throw yourself between him and the bleeding, cringing animal. What if he slaps you aside and continues his barbarity? You look around and see a two-by-four on the ground. How many of you would not take that two-by-four to the man with a clear conscience? Sorry, there are no phone booths around. You can't call the cops or the Humane Society. You have to act now! What do you do? Are you really going to stand by and watch the travesty, all the time telling yourself that "violence doesn't solve anything"?

If you would club the animal torturer with a two-by-four, how much quicker should you come to the defense of a human victim? I grew up in the Marxist-Socialist, namby-pamby Bay Area, and I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard some pompous person tell me "I could never kill anyone!" I even said it a few times myself during my naive teens and 20s. It felt so good to utter that unctuous homily. But I don't feel that way anymore.

I would kill another human being. I would do it to save my own life or the life of an innocent victim. the act would probably make me physically ill. I might have to live with it in my mind for the rest of my life, but I pray I would have the courage,-yes, courage-to stop consummate evil with whatever means became necessary.

And it is for this reason that I am a fervent advocate of the right of the law-abiding and sane individual to possess and carry a firearm. The right to self-defense is not only a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution, it is a duty, a command of "Nature and Nature's God" (to quote Jefferson) that each of us must confront if we are to preserve freedom and moral civilization in our communities and nation.

Modern-day "gun control" is not something invented in America by Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Adolph Hitler used firearms and ammunition registration to create the paper trails that facilitated the eventual confiscation of the firearms of his opponents in Nazi Germany. The Nazi German law bears such an amazing resemblance to America's Gun Control Act of 1968 that every school child should be made aware of the similarity. Or perhaps we should all think about a very simple fact: slaves can't own guns.

Perhaps the world isn't the way we wish it would be. We all might wish that evil men could be persuaded from their vile behavior with bleeding heart entreaties, a kiss on the cheek, or proper toilet training. But it ain't that way, folks, Pacifism is a sickness, an actual moral perversity, when its effects spread to anyone else beside yourself. You may choose to walk to the cattle car, but damn you if you let your children be led up the ramp. You must never allow any group or government to steal your right to exercise armed lethal force in a just situation.

One of the greatest instructors in the defensive use of firearms used to say to his graduating classes: "May you never have to use what you have learned here." And in that spirit I would like to see an American citizenry that is armed to the teeth and as skilled in the use of pistols and rifles as we are in the driving of automobiles. Am I insane? Somehow, looking at the tragic lessons of history, I don't think so.

ecamd1025

Why? would you feel bad having to preserve your life? have you ever been moody or drunk? Have you said something you didnt mean at the time. Well if you did then someone in the world would have fought you and for no reason. To compare violence using hitler and a street situation is trivial(useless). Most of teh people you will fight can be avoided, if your ego is not boosted so high that you have a problem with ones who dont even approach you. I think its ok under dier circumstances that you have to or your dead. It sphysical fear. But why is violence a solution, when it only breeds more violence to begin with. Then youjust continue with violence. Then there is no solution but that. Its psychological man. Think about it . Take care

gregimotis

Violence is a solution to an attack with intent to rape. In that context your entire post makes no sense at all. Think about it.

__________________
.
.
I am Tired. Tired. Tired.

ecamd1025

If someone attacks me I run or I fight If I cant I do what I must. But hitler has nothing in context to do with violence when it comes to battle or assult. Hes a dictator ruler fuhrer. Theres so many different things involved, what if he wasnt raised the way he was, then it would be different. He was obviously affected by his relation to other people being in that situation and the great power he had he could do such acts. But to use violence for no reason and to say it is normal, is not looking at the problem at all. Humans see it as a problem and the only way they solve it is by responding to violence by violence, anger by anger. Its instinctive. Power over power! to be dominated is bad, if you have power, to dominate comes natural. But it is not> Take care

treelizard

Hitler himself said that the only way the rise of the Nazi party could have been prevented was if its opponents had recognized it for what it was and smashed it in its infancy.

Tom Yum

I like cantaloupe, watermellon and pineapple.

ecamd1025

But people are conditioned to think certain ways even to this day. Good point how do you get them to recognize it if they are it. Who doesnt pursue power. Name one country that in some means does not pursue power over somebody.

Sagacious Lu

This is an interesting thread. Personally when I was younger I tended to be unrealistically idealistic, but I never took it to the ridiculous extremes because I was living in the middle of New Orleans. There's just too much crime in that town to put too much stock in the idea of "turning the other cheek" when you get hit. What if as a culture we all did carry weapons? What would that society be like? Perhaps each man and woman would receive their first side-arm on their birthday when they reached the age where they had the right to vote- also old enough to be tried as an adult in court. They would begin training with fire-arms as children so by the time they were entrusted to carry one they would be more than competent enough to use it. There would have to be extremely strict consequences for anyone who misused their gun. Even drawing it unnecessarily would have to be a punishable offense. I think that most people would respect that deadly force was everywhere and therefore you wouldn't see much trivial violence like bar fights. The down side is that it would force criminals (there will always be criminals) to be more ruthless. The bad guy knows that everyone in the room is packing so if he wants to rob a store he has no choice but to kill every one in the room- otherwise he'll catch a bullet as soon as he turns his back. I wonder if it might reduce the frequency of violent crimes, but increase their severity.

__________________

Sagacious Lu

Also, what about the people who just don't have the stomach to pull the trigger on a fellow human being? What about the people who respond to threats by panicing and flying to pieces? A weapon that you aren't capable of using is a dangerous liability.

__________________

Tom Yum

Tough call and good questions. I wouldn't underestimate anyone though.

Threats against one's livelihood in a non-hazing sense should be taken seriously.

Documentation, police reports or what else you can get are all good. On top of that it might be good to carry something for self-defense, have worked with it just a little and stay alert.

ecamd1025

Yes A person who carries a gun is afraid. Why does a human being go to the jungle and bring a gun. There is fear of someone or something strongrer than you that is going to kill you. So you need a gun. A gun soemtimes is used to control not just kill, it has power in many ways other than just one. I had someone pull a gun on me they were afraid. Afraid to death I wasnt going to do something. Even though, a soldier who is prepared to go to war is still afraid no matter how much experience he has. He is still afraid of death. Just like every othe human being is. These are rivalries between nations, gang groups, authorities, who are all afraid of being challenged. We associate our selves to groups or nation(is a group) and claim what we are associated to superior to anything else. We are rivalries to our selves, eachother, no one no force police or army will ever stop any threat. To say a president or anyone is going to stop terrorism is an illussion. What is a terrorist, someone who causes terrror to someone. Well USA does it Uk does it China does it, bin laden does it, Saddam, The gangs do it, cops do it. Who isnt a terrorist is the question, not who is. An if you or anyone else is considering on trying to stop these forces or terror. Then think to your self, Can you do it. If the only life you will preserve is yours.

GonzoStyles

carrying a gun doesnt mean you are automatically "Afraid", just prepared


a man is on a trip with his family and is suddenly ambushed and encircled
by three crooks

who has more fear?