The bombs that exploded at the finish line during the Boston Marathon dominates the news this week. Hundreds of innocent runners and observers, young and old, were killed or injured, some grievously, by unknown partie(s) who wanted to make "political statements" or to intimidate the body politic. I am confident that ultimately investigators will figure it out who did this (there is breaking news even as this is posted that a suspect in the bombings may be announced), arrests will be made, trials held and the guilty will be punished. In the process, we will discover their motive(s) as well.
They have been defined as terrorists: Other than suicide bombers, terrorists uniformly never face their victims. They had no idea who specifically they would kill and wound, nor did they care. It could have been an entire grade school class, on a field trip to watch the excitement of the marathon finish on Massachusett’s Patriot Day. Innocent children are just that: innocent, and through the ages all civilized states have attempted to exempt children from the consequences of political and military violence as much as possible. But terrorist tactics do not allow such civilized limitation as knowing ‘who’ their victims will be to rule their actions.
Thus the label of "terrorist" is a good fit in this case. But we need to know more: Is it an international and radical religious perpetrator? A domestic religious or political protester? Or who?
The label was widely and carelessly used following Nine Eleven. Those committing the acts of terror on that day were radical Islamic jihadists; they used tactical methods employed originally by Eastern European anarchists at the turn of the 19th century in Europe. Thus the classic cartoon character of the bearded black-haired man throwing the round black bomb with a sparking fuse into carriages or buildings ...
But many in our country still do not understand that radical Islamist jihadists are our clear and present enemy. They know "terrorism" was used, but not the identity of the perpetrators. That is Washington’s fault for using the labels carelessly.
Today’s use of the word is a little more disciplined. People who commit terrorist acts are terrorists, but they are always more than that: they are motivated by further scripts and ideologies: Islamist jihadism, radical leftist collectivism, radical rightist ideologists, or whatever.
We need to know our enemies! Their actions are clearly anti-civilizational.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Clear Thinking on the Second Amendment and Gun Control
Those who control the podiums in Washington and the national media that covers them are not objective observers on questions about the possession of guns. Neither are they people who think clearly, for both are pushing very particular agendas, trying to influence public opinion.
Their goal is to constrain gun possession and use ever more tightly – not address the real cause
of mentally-ill mass killers.
Edward J. Erler is a professor of political science at California State University and often writes on constitutional topics; he spoke recently at Hillsdale College on gun control. Listen to his wisdom:
“(Washington has directed) special animus against so-called assault rifles. These are semi-automatic, not automatic weapons ... and require a trigger pull for every round fired ... What inspires the ire of gun control advocates seems to be their menacing look – somehow they don’t appear fit for polite society. (Further, they say ...) No law-abiding citizen could possibly need such a weapon ... and we are assured that these weapons are not well-adapted for self-defense ...
“Now it’s undeniable, Senator Dianne Feinstein to the contrary notwithstanding, that semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 are extremely well-adapted for home defense – especially against a crime that is becoming more and more popular among criminals, the home invasion.
Over the past two decades, gun ownership has increased dramatically at the same time that crime rates have decreased ... Most gun crimes are committed with stolen or illegally obtained weapons ... The formula to decrease crime is clear: Increase the number of responsible gun owners and prosecute to the greatest extent possible under the law those who commit gun-related crimes or possess weapons illegally. (Besides, assault weapons) are rarely used by criminals, because they are neither easily portable nor easily concealed.
“The shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Newtown were mentally-ill persons who ... should have been incarcerated. Even the Los Angeles Times admits that ‘there is a connection between mental illness and mass murder.’ But the same progressives who advocate gun control also opposed the involuntary incarceration of mentally ill people who, in the case of these mass shootings, posed obvious dangers to society before they committed their horrendous acts of violence. From the point of view of the progressives who oppose involuntary incarceration of the mentally ill – you can thank the ACLU and like-minded organizations – it is better to disarm the entire population and deprive them of their constitutional freedoms, than to incarcerate a few mentally ill persons who are prone to engage in violent crimes.”
Thus we come to the nexus of the issue: the political embarrassment suffered by the
the Obama administration and its political minions, and the real reason we are subjected to their contorted rhetoric on the subject. They do not want to admit progressive doctrine released the mentally-ill from institutions onto our streets some 25 years ago! So they talk about "nasty assault weapons" instead of the real cause: which is that in the hands of a mentally-ill person feeling murderous, many devices (e.g., axe, shovel, hammer, etc) can be used to kill human beings.
It reminds me of the similar Washington word-game played in respect to the murderous radical Islamic jihadists that hate all people and things Western (especially Americans): We can’t call them "radical Islamists" because that is not politically correct in progressive-think!
So we call them "terrorists" who, seized by "terrorism," blow themselves up to murder other Muslims or to murder our diplomats and soldiers.
Clear thinking would call them what they are: radical Islamists. And then point out they are using terroristic tactics because they are weak opponents militarily.
Clear thinking and clear exposition can vastly improve the public discussion about these problems. We might even find some solutions! But instead, we get muddled and politically-correct mush from the Beltway! That’s a damned shame.
Their goal is to constrain gun possession and use ever more tightly – not address the real cause
of mentally-ill mass killers.
Edward J. Erler is a professor of political science at California State University and often writes on constitutional topics; he spoke recently at Hillsdale College on gun control. Listen to his wisdom:
“(Washington has directed) special animus against so-called assault rifles. These are semi-automatic, not automatic weapons ... and require a trigger pull for every round fired ... What inspires the ire of gun control advocates seems to be their menacing look – somehow they don’t appear fit for polite society. (Further, they say ...) No law-abiding citizen could possibly need such a weapon ... and we are assured that these weapons are not well-adapted for self-defense ...
“Now it’s undeniable, Senator Dianne Feinstein to the contrary notwithstanding, that semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 are extremely well-adapted for home defense – especially against a crime that is becoming more and more popular among criminals, the home invasion.
Over the past two decades, gun ownership has increased dramatically at the same time that crime rates have decreased ... Most gun crimes are committed with stolen or illegally obtained weapons ... The formula to decrease crime is clear: Increase the number of responsible gun owners and prosecute to the greatest extent possible under the law those who commit gun-related crimes or possess weapons illegally. (Besides, assault weapons) are rarely used by criminals, because they are neither easily portable nor easily concealed.
“The shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Newtown were mentally-ill persons who ... should have been incarcerated. Even the Los Angeles Times admits that ‘there is a connection between mental illness and mass murder.’ But the same progressives who advocate gun control also opposed the involuntary incarceration of mentally ill people who, in the case of these mass shootings, posed obvious dangers to society before they committed their horrendous acts of violence. From the point of view of the progressives who oppose involuntary incarceration of the mentally ill – you can thank the ACLU and like-minded organizations – it is better to disarm the entire population and deprive them of their constitutional freedoms, than to incarcerate a few mentally ill persons who are prone to engage in violent crimes.”
Thus we come to the nexus of the issue: the political embarrassment suffered by the
the Obama administration and its political minions, and the real reason we are subjected to their contorted rhetoric on the subject. They do not want to admit progressive doctrine released the mentally-ill from institutions onto our streets some 25 years ago! So they talk about "nasty assault weapons" instead of the real cause: which is that in the hands of a mentally-ill person feeling murderous, many devices (e.g., axe, shovel, hammer, etc) can be used to kill human beings.
It reminds me of the similar Washington word-game played in respect to the murderous radical Islamic jihadists that hate all people and things Western (especially Americans): We can’t call them "radical Islamists" because that is not politically correct in progressive-think!
So we call them "terrorists" who, seized by "terrorism," blow themselves up to murder other Muslims or to murder our diplomats and soldiers.
Clear thinking would call them what they are: radical Islamists. And then point out they are using terroristic tactics because they are weak opponents militarily.
Clear thinking and clear exposition can vastly improve the public discussion about these problems. We might even find some solutions! But instead, we get muddled and politically-correct mush from the Beltway! That’s a damned shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)