Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The Sandy Hook Horror Begs Us To Have The Courage To Do Nothing

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Region 6
    Posts
    1,175

    Default The Sandy Hook Horror Begs Us To Have The Courage To Do Nothing

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/12/27/the-sandy-hook-horror-begs-us-to-have-the-courage-to-do-nothing/2/



    The Sandy Hook Horror Begs Us To Have The Courage To Do Nothing

    Gun control supporters take part in a candlelight vigil at Lafayette Square across from the White House on December 15, 2012 in Washington. Twenty-seven people, including the shooter, were killed on December 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)


    As a parent with only one child, the massacre at the Sandy Hook elementary school was so horrific that I couldn’t even make myself follow the story. But the incident raises significant-enough questions of policy that I feel that it is worth applying unconventional logic to the aftermath.
    Here is what America must have the wisdom and courage to do about the Sandy Hook incident: nothing—nothing at all.
    It is a progressive fantasy that the world can be made perfect if only we pass enough laws and hire enough bureaucrats. It can’t be. Laws can only impact the conduct of the law-abiding. And, sane, law-abiding citizens don’t commit mass murder.
    Chicago has draconian gun laws, while in Houston, any citizen with no criminal record can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon out on the street. And, the murder rate in Chicago is 29% higher than it is in Houston.
    Chicago’s strict gun control laws have had no impact on gun murders in Chicago, because the killings are being done by criminals, who don’t obey laws.
    But wait a minute! The idea of a suicidal madman walking into a school and shooting little children dead is absolutely terrifying.
    Yes, exactly.
    Although Adam Lanza did not yell “Allah Akbar!” as he pulled the trigger, he might as well have. His act was a terrorist attack. What he did was no different than hijacking an airliner and flying it into a building filled with innocent people. His intended victims died, he died, and his act attracted a lot of media attention.
    Yes, Lanza was serving a cause that existed only in his demented mind, but were the young men that perpetrated 9/11 any less insane? What difference does it make whether homicidal/suicidal insanity is caused by religious fanaticism or by a virus that attacks the brain?
    In his 1957 science fiction novel, Wasp, author Eric Frank Russell explained the essence of terrorism, with the following analogy.
    Of itself, a wasp can be little more than an annoyance to a (non-allergic) human being. The average person outweighs a wasp by a factor of 1.4 million.
    However, occasionally, a wasp will fly in through the window of a speeding car, and the end result will be the death of everyone in the vehicle. Can a single wasp kill four or five adult human beings? No, but a human driver’s panicky reaction to a wasp can cause their deaths.
    The goal of a terrorist is to provoke his target into taking defensive measures that do more damage than the terrorist is capable of inflicting on his own.
    Was forcing airline passengers to perform self-service strip searches in perpetuity a logical response to 9/11? No. Simply reinforcing the cockpit doors of airliners and arming the pilots would have been sufficient to ensure that what happened on September 11, 2001 could never happen again. By inflicting TSA on ourselves, we made terrorism work.
    Is assigning armed guards to defend every school in the country (as suggested by the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre) a logical response to the Sandy Hook incident? No. All it would do would be to make Adam Lanza’s form of terrorism work. Posting guards would be hugely expensive, and it would merely make a guard the first target for the next Adam Lanza.
    Despite his nutty recommendation, Wayne LaPierre is not the problem. The NRA is not the problem. The threat to American society regarding Sandy Hook comes not from the political right, but from the political left.
    Progressives are now seeking to exploit the Sandy Hook tragedy to further their long-standing agenda of disarming the American people. Their first target will be high capacity magazines (e.g., clips that hold 25 rounds of ammunition), but their ultimate goal is to ban and confiscate all privately owned guns.
    Would passing a ban on large bullet clips prevent the next Sandy Hook? No. There are already lots of such ammunition clips in circulation, and they are not hard to make. A new law would not stop criminals and crazies that want such items from obtaining them.

    So, why are progressives perennially eager to pass useless laws banning large bullet clips in particular, and privately owned guns in general? The short answer is, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy”.
    The Cloward-Piven Strategy was first presented in an article in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation entitled, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The article outlined a strategy for destroying the evil capitalist system by encouraging both a huge expansion of welfare and unrest among the growing welfare population.
    In formulating their strategy, Cloward and Piven were inspired by the Los Angeles riots of 1965. They saw urban violence as being useful for furthering their goal of forcing income redistribution on a massive scale. On September 27, 1970, Cloward told the New York Times that, “Poor people can advance only when the rest of society is afraid of them”.
    Cloward and Piven are progressives, which is to say, they are leftists. Leftists have always tended to romanticize violence, revolution, and “armed struggle”. This is why leftists wear T-shirts with the image of Che Guevara (who was a cowardly, murderous thug) on them. Also, from the days of Karl Marx, leftists have had a visceral hatred for “the bourgeoisie”, the ultimate example of which is the middle-class shopkeeper/store owner.
    These two leftists proclivities have combined to produce among American progressives a fondness for urban riots. They seem to like the idea of underclass mobs looting and burning stores. It appears that Progressives see these outbursts of criminality as legitimate forms of political protest.
    During the Crown Heights riots in New York City in 1991, progressive mayor David Dinkens explained that the reason he didn’t order the police to respond to the violence with overwhelming force was that, “…the community needed to be allowed to vent.”
    Another progressive, Maxine Waters, who is the congressman representing south-central Los Angeles, said that the 1992 L.A. riots, “…constituted a ‘rebellion’ or ‘insurrection’ caused by the underlying reality of poverty and despair existing in the inner city.”
    Now, what has all of this got to do with the looming battle over gun control in general, and high capacity bullet clips in particular?
    If you Google “urban riots Houston”, what comes up is references to the “Camp Logan riot of 1917”. Houston is the fourth largest city in the U.S. It has a large minority population. Large numbers of poor people live there. And yet, there has never been an urban riot in Houston. Angry mobs have never looted and burned stores in Houston.
    Now, why do you suppose this is? Is it because Texas provides such generous welfare benefits?
    No, there has never been an urban riot in Houston because its citizens are armed to the teeth. It’s simply too risky to riot in Houston, so people don’t do it. Oppressed victims of society desiring to conduct “rebellions” and “insurrections” know that they must go to cities that have strict gun control, like Los Angeles.
    As it turns out, the weapons that are most useful for deterring urban riots are the first ones that progressives want to ban. This is not mere coincidence. A necessary first step in implementing the Cloward-Piven Strategy is to render citizens helpless in the face of urban violence.
    The idea of an armed citizenry is abhorrent to progressives. They know that at some point, their utopian schemes will exceed the consent of the governed, and they don’t want “We the People” to be capable of resisting the kind of tyranny that would be required to impose the progressive dream of “government of the people, by the credentialed experts, and for the progressive elites”. Progressives want us to have no choice other than to “go quietly into that good night” of socialism.
    The current battle over gun control is not about preventing another Sandy Hook incident. It is about panicking the American people into taking the next step on the road to serfdom. Faced with the horror of a terrorist attack that took 20 innocent young lives, America must have the courage to do nothing.

    If you are reading this. You are the resistance.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Region 6
    Posts
    1,175

    Default

    I had to post this. I have NEVER seen any mainstream outlet mention the Cloward Pivens strategy or promote the Second Amendment like this.

    If you are reading this. You are the resistance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •