In April, 36 bombs were mailed to judges, businessmen, and politicians. In June, 8 bombs were exploded in an hour and a half period. One destroyed Attorney General Mitchell Palmer's home, but failed to kill him or his family members. Other bombs went off in New York City, Boston, Patterson NJ, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. The year was 1919 and anarchists were attacking American government and businesses.
Terrorist attacks are not a new thing in America. We survived them before without drastically trading our individual rights for a false security. We can likewise survive the terrorism of Islamic jihadists without trading in our individual rights, though many have claimed otherwise and many are eager to make that bad trade.
Showing posts with label bombing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bombing. Show all posts
02 June 2013
24 April 2013
Tough Massachusetts Gun Controls Ignored by Tsarnaev Brothers and Criminals Generally
Massachusetts passed a very tough gun control law in 1998. The results have thoroughly pleased the supporters of tough gun control laws and those who wish to infringe upon the right of self-defense protected by the 2nd Amendment. In 1998, there were nearly 1.5 million gun owners in Massachusetts. The draconian gun control law of 1998 reduced the number of registered gun owners to only 200,000 by June of 2002.
Of course, the 65 murders with firearms in 1998 in Massachusetts became 122 murders with firearms in 2011. The number of armed robberies increased by 20.7% and aggravated assaults increased by 26.7%. And, surprise, surprise, the Boston Marathon bombing Tsarnaev brothers' revolvers and rifle were not registered. The adjacent states with less strict gun control laws have seen their crime rates go down.
Of course the strict gun control advocates claim that the reason for the high crime rates in Massachusetts is the failure of the lower crime rate states to enact stricter gun controls! Some people are really, really unable to draw logical conclusions from their observations. Have not those who are better armed often preyed upon those who are less well armed throughout human history? Sometimes it was roving bands of marauders, sometimes it was the local warlord, sometimes it was the criminals who defied the law and armed themselves to the teeth, and sometimes it was the government itself that preyed upon those who would not or could not defend themselves.
Of course, the 65 murders with firearms in 1998 in Massachusetts became 122 murders with firearms in 2011. The number of armed robberies increased by 20.7% and aggravated assaults increased by 26.7%. And, surprise, surprise, the Boston Marathon bombing Tsarnaev brothers' revolvers and rifle were not registered. The adjacent states with less strict gun control laws have seen their crime rates go down.
Of course the strict gun control advocates claim that the reason for the high crime rates in Massachusetts is the failure of the lower crime rate states to enact stricter gun controls! Some people are really, really unable to draw logical conclusions from their observations. Have not those who are better armed often preyed upon those who are less well armed throughout human history? Sometimes it was roving bands of marauders, sometimes it was the local warlord, sometimes it was the criminals who defied the law and armed themselves to the teeth, and sometimes it was the government itself that preyed upon those who would not or could not defend themselves.
A Most Conveniently Pliable Weapons of Mass Destruction Definition
The radical Islamists who bombed the families watching the Boston Marathon have been accused of using weapons of mass destruction by the Justice Department of the Obama Democrat Regime. I have no problem with this as a manifestation of reality.
But is it not most interesting that when a couple of radical Islamists in the United States use a home-made bomb or two, these are weapons of mass destruction, but when Saddam Hussein used anti-aircraft missiles, hundreds of tanks, and thousands of artillery pieces against American and allied forces, he had no weapons of mass destruction according to the same Democrats of the present regime in Washington.
Perhaps the necessary scale for a weapon of mass destruction is lowered when it is used against civilians. OK, then what about when Saddam used chemical weapons against entire Kurd villages or he used artillery against the majority southern Iraqis he suppressed?
So, Saddam Hussein with many billions of dollars of oil money and the willingness to lavish it on his military of regime supporters to suppress the majority of the Iraqi population had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but two not very rich and not very bright young guys in Boston did have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Democrats have a most pliable definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Indeed, they are loaded with pliable definitions. Who can forget that it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is? Who can forget that oral sex is not sex? Who can forget that a leading Weatherman terrorist is just a guy in the neighborhood? Who can forget that Obama's spiritual mentor had widely known negative opinions of the USA that Obama had never heard about? Or how about the meaning of you can keep your health insurance plan if you want to? Or that ObamaCare will bend down the curve of health care costs, in which down apparently means as seen when viewed from an alternative universe which is a mirror image to our own? Who but a Democrat would have thought to view that critically important issue from the perspective of some string theorist's alternative universe? Which brings us right back to "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is." For Democrats it is that which provides them with more power to control our lives or which in any other way is convenient to them.
But is it not most interesting that when a couple of radical Islamists in the United States use a home-made bomb or two, these are weapons of mass destruction, but when Saddam Hussein used anti-aircraft missiles, hundreds of tanks, and thousands of artillery pieces against American and allied forces, he had no weapons of mass destruction according to the same Democrats of the present regime in Washington.
Perhaps the necessary scale for a weapon of mass destruction is lowered when it is used against civilians. OK, then what about when Saddam used chemical weapons against entire Kurd villages or he used artillery against the majority southern Iraqis he suppressed?
So, Saddam Hussein with many billions of dollars of oil money and the willingness to lavish it on his military of regime supporters to suppress the majority of the Iraqi population had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but two not very rich and not very bright young guys in Boston did have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Democrats have a most pliable definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Indeed, they are loaded with pliable definitions. Who can forget that it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is? Who can forget that oral sex is not sex? Who can forget that a leading Weatherman terrorist is just a guy in the neighborhood? Who can forget that Obama's spiritual mentor had widely known negative opinions of the USA that Obama had never heard about? Or how about the meaning of you can keep your health insurance plan if you want to? Or that ObamaCare will bend down the curve of health care costs, in which down apparently means as seen when viewed from an alternative universe which is a mirror image to our own? Who but a Democrat would have thought to view that critically important issue from the perspective of some string theorist's alternative universe? Which brings us right back to "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is." For Democrats it is that which provides them with more power to control our lives or which in any other way is convenient to them.
07 June 2008
Victor Davis Hanson: The bad war?
Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq appears to be inducing both the left and parts of the right to reinterpret America's previous wars. The conservative Patrick Buchanan has written Churchill, Hitler and the 'Unnecessary War': How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World." Wow, what a perspective on WWII! Then there is the view that American and British bombing of German cities in WWII was a war crime, put forth by the leftist Nicholson Baker in Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization. Just war theory is popular in some circles. Victor Davis Hanson has a well-done commentary on this rewriting of history and this tendency to think that "liberal democracies be not just better and smarter than their adversaries, but almost superhuman in their perfection."
He points out that Buchanan's (and many others) belief that the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI was too harsh, should be viewed in light of how much worse the treaty was that Germany (Prussia) offered France in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War or to the treaty offered to Russia in 1917 when Russia left WWI after its revolution. According to Hanson, it was also milder than the treaty Germany intended to offer a defeated Britain and France should Germany win WWI. It may still be the case that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh in terms of reparation payments, but one can also argue that the penalty for starting a war and losing it needs to be severe to prevent countries from playing at war as though it is a game. Try and try again until you win all the marbles, as in the Hundred Years War. This is rather what Germany did by starting WWII. To prevent this, one can argue, as Hanson does, that the real mistake was not occupying Germany after WWI.
In any case, Hanson claims that these books do not prescribe realistic alternatives, which ought to be a lot easier to do after the fact than it is reasonable to expect it was for Britain and France while fighting for their lives. What kind of world would it have been if we had continued to find ways to keep doing deals with Hitler which were adequate to keep him happy? I expect Hitler would have been happy for a few more years if every time he proposed taking large chunks of other countries, the Allies had said "OK, go right on ahead." After all, he was only asking for areas where Germans lived. They lived in most of the cities and large towns throughout eastern Europe where they were prominent professionals and tradesmen. Hitler could have gone on a long time taking over areas alleged to committed abuses against these Germans, many of whom were German Jews.
Hanson says of America's role, "They and those who sent them into the carnage of World War II knew Americans could do good without having to be perfect. In contrast, the present critics of the Allied cause enjoy the freedom and affluence that our forefathers gave us by fighting World War II while ignoring -- or faulting -- the intelligence and resolve that won it."
He points out that Buchanan's (and many others) belief that the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI was too harsh, should be viewed in light of how much worse the treaty was that Germany (Prussia) offered France in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War or to the treaty offered to Russia in 1917 when Russia left WWI after its revolution. According to Hanson, it was also milder than the treaty Germany intended to offer a defeated Britain and France should Germany win WWI. It may still be the case that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh in terms of reparation payments, but one can also argue that the penalty for starting a war and losing it needs to be severe to prevent countries from playing at war as though it is a game. Try and try again until you win all the marbles, as in the Hundred Years War. This is rather what Germany did by starting WWII. To prevent this, one can argue, as Hanson does, that the real mistake was not occupying Germany after WWI.
In any case, Hanson claims that these books do not prescribe realistic alternatives, which ought to be a lot easier to do after the fact than it is reasonable to expect it was for Britain and France while fighting for their lives. What kind of world would it have been if we had continued to find ways to keep doing deals with Hitler which were adequate to keep him happy? I expect Hitler would have been happy for a few more years if every time he proposed taking large chunks of other countries, the Allies had said "OK, go right on ahead." After all, he was only asking for areas where Germans lived. They lived in most of the cities and large towns throughout eastern Europe where they were prominent professionals and tradesmen. Hitler could have gone on a long time taking over areas alleged to committed abuses against these Germans, many of whom were German Jews.
Hanson says of America's role, "They and those who sent them into the carnage of World War II knew Americans could do good without having to be perfect. In contrast, the present critics of the Allied cause enjoy the freedom and affluence that our forefathers gave us by fighting World War II while ignoring -- or faulting -- the intelligence and resolve that won it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
