Defend the Children

_{Barry Arrington

May 24, 2022

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The madness will not end until we grasp the following truths:

1. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US.

2. Even assuming for the sake of argument that it would be a desirable thing to do, no gun control law can eliminate all or even a small fraction of those guns.

3. Evil men will always be able to get a gun.

4. Schools are soft targets full of defenseless people.

5. We can’t hire enough cops to guard all of those people.

6. We need to equip and train school staff who are willing to do so to defend themselves and the children in their care.

7. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. It is being done in Israel.

Fight me. Show me that one of those statements is false.

Comments

AS, we must heed these signs and recognise the sorts of characters and agendas we are dealing with. KFkairosfocus_{June 22, 2022
June
06
Jun
22
22
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PST}

"Do we recognize signs of media manipulation to push policy agendas that could not pass on their true face value merits?" KF, Indeed. They want to control and confiscate guns. Important details are ignored. Andrewasauber_{June 22, 2022
June
06
Jun
22
22
2022
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PST}

Now, after the media frenzy we see https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/uvalde-could-have-been-stopped-in-three-minutes/
Today we learned that Uvalde police had body armor, ballistic shields, could have stopped the shooter in three minutes, the door to the classroom was never locked, and no attempt was made to open it. School Police Chief Pete Arredondo allowed this to happen. The question is why? — Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 21, 2022 Reuters: TEXAS DPS DIRECTOR SAYS CLASSROOM DOOR IN UVALDE SCHOOL SHOOTING WAS NOT LOCKED, EVEN AS POLICE WAITED FOR KEY — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 21, 2022 BREAKING: Texas DPS Director CONFIRMS Uvalde officers never even checked to see if the doors to the classrooms were locked — Jack Posobiec ?? (@JackPosobiec) June 21, 2022
Are we going to see a wall to wall discussion on policing failure? Of course not, does not fit the agenda. And the officials had to know all of this day one, so why is this only coming out now, about a month later? Do we recognise signs of media manipulation to push policy agendas that could not pass on their true face value merits? KFkairosfocus_{June 22, 2022
June
06
Jun
22
22
2022
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PST}

JH, Projection in defiance of manifest facts, setting up and knocking over a strawman. The pro life movement spent half a century arguing, using classic rights acknowledged in the 1st amdt US Const, in the face of a warped and deadly decision from the outset, and as a blood toll of 63 million built up, because of a commitment to peaceful reform. Eventually, the warped law has been recognised by a majority, and immediately it was doxxed, intimidated and threatened with assassination. Legislative moves to enhance protection were blocked by supporters of the mass killing [itself telling]. Now, a law that targets abuse of freedoms in contempt of court and obstructing the course of justice by "the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice" -- yardstick words implying that the plain intent of "influencing" any "judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty" is in the sense unduly or improperly influencing -- is being cynically twisted to insinuate that responsible peaceful protest is the same. Genuine coin and counterfeit are not the same, pretence otherwise notwithstanding. Had you suggested an amendment to the law to clarify that influencing is explicitly understood as improper and reflecting contempt of court and justice, that would be one thing. Notice, contempt proceedings are recognised in the text as to go forward with this prospective count. You have insistently done something else and have pretended that due distinction is wrong -- itself an appeal to the ciceronian first duties of reason -- and have tried turnabout projection built on strawman caricature. You have measured your character in public, and the nature of the cause that seemingly can only be advanced with such tactics, a cause that for half a century has cost 25,000 of our living posterity their lives per week. That is the sorry record you have made. You would be well advised to reconsider. KFkairosfocus_{June 22, 2022
June
06
Jun
22
22
2022
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PST}

KF: JH, we understand your casuistic twisting. It fails. KF
What you don’t understand is that laws either apply to everyone, or they apply to no one. Which is it?JHolo_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PST}

JH, we understand your casuistic twisting. It fails. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PST}

KF, you really are a piece of work. Laws either apply to everyone or they apply to no one. You can’t pick and choose who to apply them to based on your religious views. The law you cited was very clear. Those who protest in front of a court or in front of the residence of a judge, with the intent of influencing them, is breaking the law. Black and white. So, whether you are a pro-choice protesting in front of a judge’s house or a pro-lifer protesting in front of the Supreme Court, you are breaking the law. Either enforce the law for all, or ignore it for all. I don’t really care. But to selectively enforce it is to invite disaster. Getting all self-righteous defending one side’s right to break the law over the other just undermines the branch we all sit on; edges us all over the cliff, to the rocks below. I’m sure I could think up a couple more lame metaphors, but I’m sure you get the point.JHolo_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PST}

JH, you just told us that, to enable further mass killing of our living posterity, you are willing to cover up the difference between doxxing, intimidation, threat to life and free peaceful public assembly to petition patiently [49 years as a death toll mounted up to 63 millions]. you have again publicly measured your character. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PST}

KF, whether you protest at a justice’s house or at the supreme court, the intent is the same. To influence the court. Based on the law you cited, this is illegal. It doesn’t say that one tactic is worse than the other. Petitioning for redress of grievance is either allowed everywhere, except on private property, or it is banned. You can’t have it both ways. And you certainly can’t qualify it based on the cause. Individuals, whether they be justices, senators, congressmen, mayors, etc make decisions that affect others. Why should they be exempt from peaceful protest for the decisions they make? Perhaps the government should just harden these soft targets to prevent the odd crazy from causing harm. Much like abortion clinics have had to do.JHolo_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PST}

JH, you full well know the difference between doxxing and intimidation and a rally of free expression giving a petition for redress of grievance. As do all of the pundits and media houses playing a dirty projection game on this. That is precisely how we got the Sandmann smear, and it is high time this stops. Notice, this sophistry is enabling of the continued mass slaughter of our living posterity. Which takes us to the destruction of credibility through a long train of abuses and usurpations. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PST}

KF: JH, conflating two utterly different things…
KF, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You were the one that brought up the law to prove the illegality of the protests in front of the justices’ residences, not me. The law clearly states:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer…
It is the height of hypocrisy to claim that this applies to the protesters in front of the justices residences but not to the protesters in front of the Supreme Court. The words of the law are very clear and unambiguous. Your reaction to my comment speaks volumes to your credibility. Frankly, I think both actions should be prosecuted. I am interested to hear your view.JHolo_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST}

JH, conflating two utterly different things to make a talk point and refusing to acknowledge there has already been a credible threat to life. That speaks, as does the unwillingness to face the ongoing mass slaughter of our living posterity for what it is. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PST}

KF@963, if you support charges against protesters in front of the justices’ houses then you must also support charges against March for Life protesters who have protested in front of the Supreme Court every year. They are breaking the same law. Or is that acceptable because you support their cause?JHolo_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PST}

Relatd, I note that above, there is a discussion of what an assault rifle [= sturmgewehr] objectively is. Namely, as descended from the MP/StG 44, a rifle, with select fire including automatic [and/or burst] mode firing an INTERMEDIATE cartridge (so bursts can be controllable), typically with effective range 300 - 500 yd. These were suited to infantry tactics in the late WW2 to recent years but now with a new armoured age the US is shifting back to a new form of battle rifle firing a full power cartridge, and already there are issues over controllability and recoil. Such military weapons are not generally available to the public; only specially licensed people can have such. The term, assault weapons, is ill defined and propagandistic. Your scenario is not the one that is feared, secession of a bloc of states similar to events after April 19, 1775 is; today's updated minute man would not be in readily isolated and demonised groups etc. KFkairosfocus_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PST}

Jerry at 946, There are enough guns in the U.S. for every man, woman and child. Assault rifles should not be in private hands. And even assuming a scenario where a group of people are ready to fight against the government for fear the government will take away their assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition - what will actually happen? Say 30 people are hunkered down in a fortified position in a remote location. Listening devices are deployed, government vehicles appear and tear gas is fired. Assuming this group has gas masks, flak jackets and helmets, they can't live in them for long. Or 100 government agents storm the site, place explosives and throw in a few flash-bangs to clear it out. I strongly doubt the U.S. government will take away all weapons from private citizens. New guns are being bought regularly. But I think the odds of any heavily armed group to survive confiscation of outlawed weapons is doubtful, meaning if they fire on law-enforcement or ATF agents, it's likely they will be fired upon..relatd_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PST}

From a recent article
After the Guns Were Removed, the Killing Fields Began All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” The quote was from Mao Zedong, founder of Communist China. Mao’s first act after gaining complete control of China in 1949 was to take away all guns from the population. It was a policy he began in 1935 as he took over each rural province. Anyone found with a gun post-confiscation was executed. An estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with—by execution, imprisonment, or forced famine. Mao killed more people than either Stalin or Hitler during World War II. And it all began after he took away the guns.
But the most compelling of all
Everybody ought to have a gun, Castro maintained—until he took over Cuba in 1959. At a rally in Havana before he assumed power, he explained: “This is how democracy works: It gives rifles to farmers, to students, to women, to Negroes, to the poor, and to every citizen who is ready to defend a just cause.” Weapons ranging from Czech submachine guns to Belgian FN automatic rifles were handed out to 50,000 soldiers, 400,000 militiamen, 100,000 members of the factory-guarding popular defense force, and to many men, women, and children in Cuba’s 1 million-strong “neighborhood vigilance committees.” Immediately after assuming power in 1959, Castro changed his position, following Mao’s rule that guns should not be in the hands of the people. For three weeks after the Castro government was formed, Radio Havana warned, “All citizens must turn in their combat weapons. Civilians must take arms to police stations, soldiers to military headquarters.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/06/16/after-the-guns-were-removed-the-killing-fields-began/jerry_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST}

Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507 18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading U.S. Code Notes prev | next Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt. (Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, §?31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) --> A contempt of court issue, now compounded by a credible threat to life.kairosfocus_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PST}

Waiting for a truck to run down the protesters at the justices' houses...ET_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PST}

Protest at justice’s house. https://apple.news/AQaceYqhJQ56T2q92l1z9DQJHolo_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PST}

JH at 955, Miscarriage is not a choice. Look it up. How many pregnancies are caused by rape and incest? The woman was not left with a choice regarding conception. It would be better if men and women took sex more seriously. That having sex outside of marriage does not mean that the man gets to walk away if the woman gets pregnant. Or that sex is some trivial thing. I see ads on TV for contraceptives that treat it that way. So there are contraceptive injections and pills and other forms of contraception for women and it's still not enough? What more can be done? For men, it's condoms but that is portrayed as inconvenient while "spontaneity" regarding sex is seen as more important. Sex education? What about before radical Leftists forced it to be taught in schools? I was born in the 1950s. The average number of kids in my neighborhood was 2 not 10. Men and women knew what to do but Total Strangers appeared and said they knew better. Parents were portrayed as "too embarrassed" to talk to their kids about sex. That was a lie because I saw people living it out in real life. Then the radicals got together to market birth control pills and abortion. 1960 - The FDA approves the birth control pill. Most women do not want or need it. It is only available by prescription. 1967 - Time magazine runs a cover story about The Pill and tells women the following: "Contraception - Freedom From Fear." Fear of what? Babies. That bundle of joy, that gift from God. 2010 - Time magazine runs another cover story about The Pill. From the cover: "So small. So powerful. So misunderstood" A little late, don't you think? By 2010, a lot of women were on The Pill. I opened the newspaper in the 1980s and saw a clear attack on the sanctity of marriage. A lot of ads in the Classifieds from attorneys that read like this: "No kids? $75 and you're out. Call 800-DIVORCE." Quick, easy, and it's No-Fault. Nobody's fault. You want out? Call a lawyer and you're out. While total strangers were busy tearing down the traditional normal family, they could foresee the consequences. Or they could see them as they happened. The child of a neighbor of mine said the following to me and my mother. She was about 7. "My mom was going to have a baby brother or a baby sister but now she's not going to have one." And she walked away, with no understanding of what she just told us.relatd_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PST}

PS, Plato is rather contemporary sounding:
Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: "nature" (here, mechanical, blind necessity), "chance" (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all[--> notice the reduction to zero] in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, so too justice, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin"), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . this is actually an infamous credo of nihilism . . . also, it reeks of cynically manipulative lawless oligarchy . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PST}

JH, cooperation and compromise ends when it is enabling mass shedding of innocent blood. That this often goes unregognised is a reflection of the old dehumanisation tactic that lay behind say enslavement and the Atlantic slave trade. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PST}

KF: JH, “Rights are what we as a society grant each other” — if that were so, there would be just one right, might makes right. AKA, nihilism
Yes, it can certainly lead to that. And history is full of examples where this is the case. But you completely ignore the concept of cooperation and compromise.
PS, you will kindly stop pushing words that do not belong there in my mouth, as you try to set up a distraction
I will make you a deal. When you stop ascribing motivations and intentions to my comments that you can’t know, which you do frequently, I will do the same.JHolo_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PST}

JH, "Rights are what we as a society grant each other" -- if that were so, there would be just one right, might makes right. AKA, nihilism. That is what Plato warned against in one of those "obscure" foundational texts, The Laws, Bk X. In short, you reduced yourself to absurdity. KF PS, you will kindly stop pushing words that do not belong there in my mouth, as you try to set up a distraction. What is on the table is for the US a matter of avg 25,000 of our living posterity killed per week for nearly 50 years and globally currently a million. This is the largest, worst sustained act of state enabled violence in history and utterly discredits states that fail this test.kairosfocus_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PST}

Relatd: Once conception occurs, a woman is going to have a baby and sees a doctor to ensure she has a healthy baby which requires she do certain things during pregnancy.
Except that up to 30% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage.
Now, certain radicals are trying to paint the government as an entity that forces births. Who decided to have sex? The woman or the government?
Or the rapists or the incestuous relative. Wouldn’t a better strategy be to take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to provide support to women when they occur? But I don’t see much of a desire from commenters here to ensure that birth control is readily available, that sex education is provided early and non-judgementally, and that funding be provided to women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. It’s almost as if their opposition was religiously based, and not evidence based.JHolo_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PST}

SA
SA: You’d be assigning rights to who can live or die depending on how old they are.
No. I am now 63 years and eight months old. I suspect that you and everyone else here measures their age from their date of birth, not their date of conception. Why is that so?JHolo_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PST}

JH at 951, Either abortion kills a living human being or it doesn't. The lie that the woman was getting rid of a 'blob of tissue' was a lie. If all she was going to have was a blob of tissue then there would be no problem. Life begins at conception. That's not a religious statement, it's a scientific statement. Once conception occurs, a woman is going to have a baby and sees a doctor to ensure she has a healthy baby which requires she do certain things during pregnancy. Now, certain radicals are trying to paint the government as an entity that forces births. Who decided to have sex? The woman or the government?relatd_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST}

JH
Sorry, but I don’t accept that the rights of a weeks old fetus exceed those of an adult woman.
You'd be assigning rights to who can live or die depending on how old they are.Silver Asiatic_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PST}

Relatd: There is no debate. You were once a fetus, along with everyone else reading this. This isn’t about Person A has more rights than Person B. YOU were once a fetus.
Yes. I was once a fetus. And as I am now an adult I would have hated if my mother had aborted me. But if I was aborted, I wouldn’t be around now to care. And to really throw a twist into the fabric, I was conceived on a doctor’s recommendation. My mother suffered serious postpartum depression after my older brother was born. Do you believe that she had the right to bring another child into the world for purely selfish reasons?
That’s the problem. People like you prefer to paint those who disagree as filled with hate and being ignorant. Am I right?
No. You disagree with me all the time. I don’t think you are filled with hate. But you don’t respond to my comments by inferring that I am a nihilist, a liar, dishonest, a troll, or any number of other labels that people here have applied to me simply because I disagree.JHolo_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PST}

OR at 947, Do you really believe that or are you here to get the needle on the Outrage Meter to the red zone?relatd_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 33 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply