New Binswanger Op-Ed at Forbes!

Ayn Rand Center's picture
Submitted by Ayn Rand Center on Thu, 2013-01-03 20:59

Harry Binswanger, a board member at The Ayn Rand Institute, has just had a new op-ed published at Forbes.com: “With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral.”

Before the Newtown horror, I, like many people, was in conflict regarding gun control. On the one hand, guns are dangerous. Their wide availability means people can kill on impulse, and surely that means more domestic quarrels turn into killings. And only anarchists would deny Ayn Rand’s point that ‘the government is the means of placing the use of retaliatory force under objective control.’

On the other hand…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ha...


Harry on tele

gregster's picture

At Blaze TV. About four days ago. He does a good job here too.

It seems we are twisting ourselves...

Marcus's picture

...in pretzels to define an "objective threat".

We all know that at the level of what people call "WMD" the risk of massive damage to innocent life and property is too horrendous to contemplate.

If said private owner were sane today and tomorrow went insane or was burgled or blackmailed etc...., a massively destructive weapon would be in the hands of a criminal.

Once that threat exists the chances of neutralising such a threat by the authorities are slim.

That's the problem.

Defining that "objective" threat.

Another. 26th Dec was a busy day for gun posts

gregster's picture

"[..] The question is: which acts count as threats of force?

No private citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.

HB: Weapon, yes. Smallish bomb for mining purposes, okay subject to my comments in a previous post.

And yet government regulations of the nuclear power industry do count as unjust “preventive law.” What's the difference? Nuclear weapons are designed to inflict mass casualties; nuclear power reactors are designed to provide cheap and safe energy. Provably dangerous use of a nuclear reactor could be outlawed. But this constrains accidental use of the reactor. Not so with the weapon. The very possession of a properly functioning nuclear bomb—especially if it is in the hands of a private citizen—is essentially and not accidentally a threat. We do not presume guilt to outlaw such weapons. To possess such weapons is already a confession of guilt.

HB: Right, assuming we can distinguish between a weapon and a peacefully useable explosive device. (But the private nuke is a red-herring issue anyway.)

Now a handgun is of course designed to kill. But killing in self-defense is a legitimate use of such weapons, especially when recourse to police protection is impossible. So arguably in at least many contexts the possession of such weapons does not constitute a threat, and banning them would be a presumption of guilt. Machine guns, on the other hand, are designed to inflict mass casualties, and except in rare cases have no legitimate self-defense purpose. Arguably then, banning them does not presume guilt.

HB: I agree with this. And note that “semi-automatic” is not a machine gun. I forget, but I don't even think “automatic” is a machine gun. The kind of thing that could be banned (allowing for exemptions in demonstrably special cases) is the Tommy gun.

Background checks and gun registration are slightly more complicated. Arguably, requiring these of citizens does not presume guilt, because innocent citizens are still completely unhindered in their ability to purchase guns. This is analogous to guarding an international border which anyone is free to cross, provided that they have a passport and are not a known terrorist or contagious.

HB: Yes, but I strongly oppose that (except in wartime).

True, innocent individuals in both cases would not pose a direct threat to anyone in the absence of these requirements. But arguably, their participation in a system lacking such checks would pose a threat, insofar as it would permit criminals and terrorists to pass through unnoticed.

HB: One shouldn't imagine that “criminal” and “terrorist” are things knowable by border inspectors. And, further, do we have to accept a foreign nation's definition of “criminal”? Do we have a board that keeps tabs on which nations' definition of “criminal” goes for us and which don't? If a person is a fugitive from our legal system, he can of course be arrested. But why do that at the border? And there's no justification for making all of us non-fugitives go through screening in order to apprehend (maybe) a handful of returning fugitives. If there are known fugitives (and how could they not be known?) the police are free to monitor the borders for them, just as they are free to monitor the coffee shops for them. But this “screening of criminals” idea sounds good but cannot be concretized.

As to terrorists: we wouldn't have any foreign terrorists if we had a decent foreign policy. And if we don't, we cannot achieve anything against a regime which wants to place people here as in 9/11—all of those 20 people were here legally, after screening.

Here Ayn Rand's distinction between procedural and substantive powers (from “Thought Control, Part III”) is probably relevant.

HB: I don't think so, because that doesn't involve screening but the requirements of doing certain things which if done in the wrong (overtly public) way would violate some people's rights."

Private Nukes?

gregster's picture

This was posted on Harry Binswanger's list on 26 Dec 2012.

"So where is the cutoff? Could we line up all the functioning weapons from thumbtacks to nuclear bombs in order of lethality and draw a dividing line? I don't think that's an effective approach. A truck-load of guys with high powered rifles with scopes on private land in Montana is no threat to the folks back in the city. There is no one-size-fits-all rule.

HB: No, but there are standards. Jean has suggested, intriguingly, that (to use my wording) the higher the level of potential disaster, the greater care must be exhibited to show there's not a threat. If a person or company wants to make a nuke to use in mining (something that was envisioned in the 50s), there are many specific steps to ensure safety which, if he doesn't take, he's engaging in reckless endangerment—i.e., an objective threat. That includes taking steps to ensure that terrorists can't break in and steal his bomb. In fact, if he doesn't want to demonstrate to all potentially affected that counts as an objective threat.

Now what of the presumption of guilt? Any law that forbids the simple ownership of property on the assumption that we are all guilty of evil intent is unjust. It's not what we own, it's what we do with it.

HB: Yes, and the more destructive it is, the higher the standards regarding “what we do with it.”

We have plenty of laws to forbid aggressive actions, so I conclude that we have already taken the law as far as it can reasonably go.

HB: In many ways, we've gone way beyond that. But possibly in other ways, we haven't gone far enough in protecting against objective (not statistical) threats. When government starts doing what it shouldn't, it stops doing all that it should, or stops doing it effectively.

What we are trying to do now is find a way to minimize the chances of an evildoer with no prior record acquiring a gun. I submit that it is not appropriate to do that by law.

HB: In some respects. But one thing that the law should return to doing is locking away the dangerously insane. The libertarian Thomas Szaz was instrumental in the movement begun in the late 60s to dump crazies back on the streets. He bears heavy guilt for many of these Newtown-type atrocities."

"Anyone here have a good definition of "right to bear arms"

Sandi's picture

and where one can draw the line on what type of arms those may be?"

There is no line. It is withever and whatever it takes to over-throw a bad government.

Kyrel...

Marcus's picture

...who judges when your nuke is an objective threat?

By the time you have one it would perhaps be too late for the police to act.

Surely the risk of individuals owning their own nuclear arsenals, airforce or military would be too great. Make a mistake in your objective judgement of the threat and it's too late, the consequences for life and property too huge to contemplate.

nukes

Damien Grant's picture

The problem with the assault rifle debate is that all assault rifles are going to be banned because some people abuse them by killing school children.

I do not see why you need an assault rifle to hunt deer or protect your four square, but none the less, if a responsible person wants one I see no reason why he should not have one.

Regulating who owns the guns makes for a happy medium where gun nuts can own all the fire power they want and the criminals and crazies are compelled to source the weapons from more restrictive sources. Some will fail and lives will be saved.

Owning guns is difficult for libertarians because a gun has as its primary purpose doing damage to people. This is what the device is designed for and if we allow their free distribution then innocent people will be killed. We may not know who will do the killing and we may not know who will be killed but we know that this is the result of a liberal gun regime.

The complexities in it may explain why Ayn Rand never explicitly responded, even when the question was put directly to her. There is no right answer from a libertarian perspective.

Biswanger’s view that until the person has committed a crime then we cannot judge him guilty and prevent him from owning a gun.

I take the reverse view. If you want to own something that has such killing potential you should be made to prove that the rest of us have no cause to fear you. Owning a gun is not some inimitable right handed down by god, Locke or Cicero.

This is an argument that should resonate here given the views concerning a fifth column of jihadists pounding at the gate. Liberal gun laws means we cannot stop the imams arming their army, (even if this army only exists in your head).I worry more about the idiots I see swelling the ranks of the entitlement generation, mindless fools who have been taught that the world owes them a living. If they want to do drugs I do not mind, they harm themselves, but if they wish to have guns I do mind, they may harm me.

The only imperative a citizen may have in gun ownership is that in an armed society being unarmed may be bad for your health, and that is the quandary our American friends find themselves.

But using Biswanger’s reasoning, if you want to own a nuclear weapon or similar device, it is a reasonable and defendable position that such a desire is an indication that you are the sort of person who should not have one. The argument is Heller-like in its simplicity but effective.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms, But...

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Every individual has a limitless right to own nuclear weapons. But no-one has a right to pose an overwhelming objective threat to his fellows. If he does, his weapons and life should be immediately taken from him.

So it would be fine to have...

Marcus's picture

...a nuclear weapon as a private individual if one had to have a licence to own one?

That's an interesting idea.

the line

Damien Grant's picture

I would prefer that the line be drawn less on the weapon and more on the individual.

Owning a gun, like having a driver's license, is something that should need to be limited to those who can pass some form of good character test. The non-initiation of force principle is violated, but it is also violated by preventing someone accessing bombs.

The whole gun-control argument seems to be about preventing criminals having guns. Well, liberal gun laws, it seems to me, does the reverse. It means anyone can access a fire arm. If you license who can purchase one, then those who are of poor character will be forced into the black market, those who pass will be able to purchase.

It will not stop organised criminals gaining weapons but it will make it harder for petty and opportunistic criminals as well as the mentally unwell. It should reduce the death toll but will not limit the ability of responsible citizens from having access to weapons.

If you take Reisman’s line, that we need an armed civilian population to prevent the emergence of a totalitarian state then you will not want to give the state the power to limit who can access guns.

I can see his argument and it has merit but he does not deal with the cost of a proliferation of weaponry in the civilian population, which will be a degree of armed conflict and violence much higher than with a relatively unarmed population; thus, you have the cost of preventing a possible emergence of tyranny against the certain increased violence from liberal gun laws.

You need to balance your risk perspective to decide which side of the fence you sit. Looking at the odds, I sit on the side of restrictive gun laws.

However...

Marcus's picture

...where does one draw the line?

For years we have argued that one may not possess a nuclear weapon because that could not be possibly justified in terms of personal self-defence. The same would apply to the hoarding of bombs and other missiles I would assume. Not reasonable for self-defence.

So where does one draw the line here?

Is an "assault" weapon used by the military a reasonable requirement for personal self-defence too?

Anyone here have a good definition of "right to bear arms" and where one can draw the line on what type of arms those may be?

If "Mankind is not a herd"

Sandi's picture

Then mankind does not require thugs armed with cattle prodders to force compliance.

"The proper job of government is to protect the individual’s rights by wielding retaliatory force against the force initiated by criminals or foreign aggressors." How are they going to do that if they are not around each individual 24/7. Surely it is up to the individual to defend himself if he has not the means to accomodate a bodyguard.

"The government may respond only to specific threats". In most cases that is exactly what the government does. It responds, after the fact. It collects the evidence AFTER the fact. I also note the wording "may respond" because a police officer has no official duty to protect anybody. [Warren v. District of Columbia]

For Dummies

gregster's picture

Very verbose for dancing on

Richard Wiig's picture

Very verbose for dancing on the head of a pin.

Wrong. I knock the crap out of those who think that someone is an enemy of the west because they are Muslim. The amount of evidence that exists that proves that not all Muslims support Jihad is overwhelming.

Mysticism is the enemy of reason, so by definition a muslim is an enemy of the West. But yes, there's such a thing as degree. No one has claimed that all muslims are jihadists, or that all muslims are violent, so why you persist as if they have is a mystery.

Richard, you are an expert at misrepresentation. Especially what you say below;

9/11 didn't happen because of poverty, or because injustice in American foreign policy

I never said that it did, I never implied it, do not believe it, and would not care even if it were true. You are seeing things that are not there. Like a Muslim on a bus.

I simply listed a few of the possible reasons that are often given other than Islam. I didn't say that you did say or imply any of it.

anti-Islam blog is not a derogatory statement, it is an objective description.

Although it is being presented in a manner as to imply a failing on the part of the anti-Islam blogger. If it was not, then it is my misunderstanding.

9/11 didn't happen because …… of hatred of Western freedoms……or because of the culture in the Middle East.

Well here we disagree,

We do.

because I think this is exactly part of the reason we face such hatred by some is precisely because they hate what the west stands for. Freedom of religion, thought, expression, equality of the sexes and the rule of law and not imam. (See what I did there! Allah I’m clever)

Any feelings of hate they have towards the unIslamic (it isn't primarily the West they hate) are not primaries. Their feelings arise because of the ideas they are steeped in. It's no coincidence that those with the most hatred are those most steeped in their religion. Yes, culture matters. But again, culture isn't a primary any more than feelings of hatred.

Here is another issue for you to get both neurons around. If a chap went around Malaysia trying to set up a terrorist Jihadist group he would, I think, be shunned by his peers, reported, possibly arrested and generally discouraged.

It would depend on what circles he moved in. Malaysia is not as free from Islamic supremacist sentiment as you might think.

http://www.themalaysianinsider...

http://www.themalaysianinsider...

I am sure you can find a Malaysian Jihadist to give some anecdotal cover for your belief system but it will not alter the fact that the country is Muslim, democratic, (mostly), capitalist (of a sort), peaceful, pro-western, safe to travel around, and a good place to do business.

I really wish you'd broaden your view of what constitutes Jihad. Your narrow focus on acts of violence is not the breadth or depth of the picture, but it is where you're intent on stopping. The prime minister of Malaysia is a practitioner of Jihad:

Najib said it was compulsory in Islam to combat pluralism, liberalism, and LGBT behaviour.—File pic

And now we come to Mali. I see you ducked this issue, and I understand, because it is a perfect example of what I have been saying and destroys your belief system.

I didn't duck anything, and my belief system hasn't been dented. That muslims are fighting other muslims is part and parcel of Islam.

A Muslim nation asking the west to help them kill Jihadists. Read that statement again and think why, for Allah’s sake, would a Muslim nation want to kill Jihadists?

Because those Jihadists want to subjugate them under Islam???

The other issues you raise may be valid but they do not discount this key fact: Muslims who hate Jihadists enough that they want western help to kill them!

Those other issues are very valid. We are attacking jihadists on the one hand, and enabling them on the other.


Anyway, I tried to end this debate on the other thread, and you followed me here like a stalker.

I promise you. If I was going to stalk someone it would be someone less hairy and more pretty than you are.

I wish, I wish he’d go away...

Damien Grant's picture

Because you seem to deny that there's anything wrong with Islam. You say on the one hand that you're not suggesting that Islam isn't part of the problem, but on the other you knock the crap out of people who identify just precisely what the problem is.

Wrong. I knock the crap out of those who think that someone is an enemy of the west because they are Muslim. The amount of evidence that exists that proves that not all Muslims support Jihad is overwhelming. You need to wilfully ignore the facts to maintain your position, which you do, so I knock you for it.

A disparaging remark that misunderstands and/or misrepresents peoples positions

Richard, you are an expert at misrepresentation. Especially what you say below;

9/11 didn't happen because of poverty, or because injustice in American foreign policy

I never said that it did, I never implied it, do not believe it, and would not care even if it were true. You are seeing things that are not there. Like a Muslim on a bus.

"anti-Islam blog" as opposed to freedom-fighting blog

anti-Islam blog is not a derogatory statement, it is an objective description. Freedom-fighting blog, well, taken literally, that may also be an objective description but in the context that you mean it, it is a subjective statement.

9/11 didn't happen because …… of hatred of Western freedoms……or because of the culture in the Middle East.

Well here we disagree, because I think this is exactly part of the reason we face such hatred by some is precisely because they hate what the west stands for. Freedom of religion, thought, expression, equality of the sexes and the rule of law and not imam. (See what I did there! Allah I’m clever)

Here is another issue for you to get both neurons around. If a chap went around Malaysia trying to set up a terrorist Jihadist group he would, I think, be shunned by his peers, reported, possibly arrested and generally discouraged. It is why, I think, that there is very little Jihadist activity from that country. If the same thing happened in Saudi, I think, that there would be a lot of looking the other way, little or no official reaction, and perhaps some admiration from his community, tacit or explicit.

That, Richard, is what I am talking about when I say culture. This is not a difficult or even controversial thing to accept. It does not even, in itself, invalidate your hatred of a belief system and a people you do not understand and have not met. I am sure you can find a Malaysian Jihadist to give some anecdotal cover for your belief system but it will not alter the fact that the country is Muslim, democratic, (mostly), capitalist (of a sort), peaceful, pro-western, safe to travel around, and a good place to do business.

And now we come to Mali. I see you ducked this issue, and I understand, because it is a perfect example of what I have been saying and destroys your belief system. A Muslim nation asking the west to help them kill Jihadists. Read that statement again and think why, for Allah’s sake, would a Muslim nation want to kill Jihadists? The other issues you raise may be valid but they do not discount this key fact: Muslims who hate Jihadists enough that they want western help to kill them!

In your confused narrow world, these people cannot exist, so I guess they must be Muslims that do not exist, maybe not true Muslims, maybe the media is lying, maybe, maybe, maybe, you are wrong. Maybe the culture of the nations where the Jihadists come from matters. Maybe religion is not the only thing that causes someone to become a Jihadist. Maybe, maybe, maybe, something other than a belief in Allah is needed to make someone want to cut an infidel’s head off.

It is not a difficult thing to accept, but is requires an acknowledgement that if culture matters, then it is possible to have Muslims who, for cultural and personal reasons, do not want to destroy the west, who do not want to live under Sharia law, who do not care what infidels think, do not care how infidels live, who do not want their sons to become suicide bombers, who want their girls to go to school, who want to drink Pepsi and watch Beyoncé’s Single Ladies video.

Anyway, I tried to end this debate on the other thread, and you followed me here like a stalker. I want to stop debating you. So I will resist responding to your next irrational post, no matter how desperately you distort my views.

You can have the last word. It will be my gift to you. Then, please, leave me alone.

I came to this thread to post the question why allow liberal gun laws if the nation is being over-run with Jihadists not to keep up a pointless debate with someone who knows precious little about the very thing he claims to be expert it.

Oh, and for Allah’s sake, put these two things on your bucket list: Read the Koran if you want to claim to be an expert in Islam. It will not help you understand Islamic culture at all but it is a short read and you will find lots of stuff to confirm your hatred of the religion and lots of stuff that will undermine your hatred so you will have some more facts to ignore. And visit a Muslim country.

How, on Allah's green

Richard Wiig's picture

How, on Allah's green paradise, can you get from my sentence that I would want to defend Islam?

Because you seem to deny that there's anything wrong with Islam. You say on the one hand that you're not suggesting that Islam isn't part of the problem, but on the other you knock the crap out of people who identify just precisely what the problem is. It's like you've got a foot on each side of the fence. In doing that, you can only help Islam.


You seem incapable of understanding my fairly simple point, which is that Islam was not the sole reason for the 9/11 attacks and others like it,

Oh, I understand what you're saying. It's not hard to understand, but I do not agree with it. 9/11 didn't happen because of poverty, or because injustice in American foreign policy, or because of hatred of Western freedoms, or decadence, or because of the culture in the Middle East. It happened because of belief in and submission to the religion of Allah.


This is not a difficult point to understand, but for whatever confused reason, you are incapable of grasping.

As I said, I grasp it perfectly well.

To be fair, you are not the only one who seems stuck in a fairly simple Islam is bad mind-set,

A disparaging remark that misunderstands and/or misrepresents peoples positions.

but you are the only one who claimed to have made a study of Islam when in fact you hadn’t.

I have read up and educated myself to a certain degree about Islam. So far as I'm concerned that constitutes a study of Islam. Sure, it's not up their with the Ayatollah, and it's a zillion miles from Bernard Lewis... I haven't devoted my life to it, but its education all the same. I only care about Islam in regards to the threat that it presents to our liberty, and what I have been learning is adequate enough for that.

When you disparage people fighting for liberty with belittling comments such as "anti-Islam blog" as opposed to freedom-fighting blog, then you're working for the Islamic supremacist team whether you know it or not.

What should melt brain cells

Richard Wiig's picture

What should melt brain cells is that Al Qaeda in Mali is helped by Jihadists in Libya, who in turn are helped by France and other Western powers. What should also melt brain cells is that the spiritual brethren of Al Qaeda in Mali and Jihadists in Libya are firmly ensconced within France itself, as well as continually growing within other Western nations. I don't think Doug is an isolationist. He just doesn't believe in sacrificing troops to altruistic causes, and rightly so.

Pffft

Jules Troy's picture

A French court agreed to the release of Lebanese George Abdallah, who was convicted for involvement in the murder of Israeli diplomat Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov in 1982.

Abdallah was captured in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for the murder of American Lieutenant Col. Charles Ray and the killing of Israeli diplomat Bar-Siman-Tov, in Paris.

Bar-Siman-Tov was murdered in April 1982. A terrorist who waited for him at the entrance to his apartment building shot him in the head three times in front of his wife and kids.  

 

 

Abdallah's lawyer said his client hopes to return to Lebanon and take up a teaching job there.

 Teaching what? How to be a better terrorist?

Way to go France!!

 
 

Mali

Damien Grant's picture

Now here is a country that will melt a few brains around here.

A Muslim country where the president has sought French help in dealing with the Islamic rebels in the north.

A Muslin nation, asking the west to help them kill Jihadists? How is this possible Richard? Isn’t Islam a military movement dedicated to the destruction of the west? Why would a Muslim president want help to kill Jihadists? (Maybe he is not a real Muslim).

Doug is an isolationist so would prefer to wait until the Caliphate is restored. The French are not so reluctant and are dealing with these crazies and I applaud them.

This is the way to deal with Jihadists. Attack them. Kill them. Support those in the Muslim world who are not Jihadists.

Islam is not a homogenous block of cheese. It isn’t that difficult. Many are good people, some are not. Work out who is who and act accordingly.

yes

Damien Grant's picture

I see your point.

Iran is not a real democracy therefore all Muslim nations are undemocratic!

Your logic is stunning.

I wonder how I could not see that before. You are sooooo clever.

Witty too.

Well

Jules Troy's picture

Why not become a citizen of one of those democratic Islamic nations.  Iran after all holds "democratic" elections.  So Dhimmian why not move to Iran and tell us poor deluded ignorant backwoods rednecks how lovely and free your life is over there? Tell us how wonderful life is under democratically elected sharia law can be?  Funny thing I believe they even have rigid gun control for the average citizen!  Sounds like an ideal place for you to be!!

is that right?

Damien Grant's picture

"His point was that Obama gave no support to the protesters."

I had not realised. How stupid of me.

"Islam is not compatible with liberty"

And yet we have Muslim nations with democratically elected governments? So, on one hand I have the view of an internet expert expressing his opinion based on his reading a website and once meeting a Muslim a bus, on the other I have a handful of actual, real countries that have elections and are Muslim.

Facts on one hand, Richard's bloging on the other. How am I going to resolve this?

 

how about...

Damien Grant's picture

"rather than defending Islam by explaining why it is not evil"

you read what I have actually written, oh, this morning, in the very post you responded to.

"...It is not saying that Islam is a religion of peace, it is not saying we do not face a threat, it is not saying we should not fight back. It is not even saying that Islam is not part of the problem..."

How, on Allah's green paradise, can you get from my sentence that I would want to defend Islam? You have decided, without understanding, that I am an apologist for Islam and a defender of this faith in spite of what I have explicitly written. 

You seem incapable of understanding my fairly simple point, which is that Islam was not the sole reason for the 9/11 attacks and others like it, it is merely one of a number of factors; the politicial motivations of those leading the attacks and the cultural tolerance of extremism in the cultures from whence they came being as or more important than the religion of the attackers. 

This is not a difficult point to understand, but for whatever confused reason, you are incapable of grasping. To be fair, you are not the only one who seems stuck in a fairly simple Islam is bad mind-set, but you are the only one who claimed to have made a study of Islam when in fact you hadn’t.

 

 

 

This is where you

Richard Wiig's picture

This is where you underestimate the power of ideas. Islam is not compatible with liberty, no matter how nice and friendly any particular muslims might be. That's the bottom line. The fact is, the world would be better off without Islam, without religion. Why you are trying to defend religion I do not know, but you are.

but the existence of Indonesia and Malaysia should be enough to tell even the simplest of village idiots that because someone is a Muslim does not make them an enemy of the west.

The green revolution was

Richard Wiig's picture

The green revolution was crushed by the government in Iran. Not by Obama. Do not blame him for the crimes of others.

His point was that Obama gave no support to the protesters.

Another complete and utter

Richard Wiig's picture

Another complete and utter load of bollocks from you. I didn't decide that Islam was evil at all. I didn't have any preconceived notion about Islam. When 9/11 happened I didn't know it had anything to do with Islam. I was simply horrified and absolutely stunned at what I was seeing. I had no idea what it was about or why it was happening. Islam was the last thing on my mind. It was my search for answers that led me to see that Islam is evil. You denigrate that journey of discovery, rather than defending Islam by explaining why it is not evil and why I have got the wrong end to the stick. That's why I've called you a prick. A decent person simply would not do that. You're still doing it.

You decided that Islam was evil and have read a few books and websites that confirm your view. This is acceptable if, like Doug, you make it clear that this is what you did.

A bit like judge, jury and executioner. It appears to me that it is you has a preconceived idea and then wants to make everything else fit into it.

The reason I mentioned going

Richard Wiig's picture

The reason I mentioned going to Indonesia was simply to dispel another assumption that you made, not to hold it out as anything of importance. Going to Indonesia qualifies me with nothing, as your going to the Middle East means nothing. I have never claimed to be an academic in the study of Islam. I have never made any false claims, but you have gone in leaps and bounds into many false assumptions. I have looked into Islam. After 9/11 I wanted to know what it was all about, and I found plenty out there that provides the answer. It's as simple as that, but you do anything but make it simple.

That damn Obama again.

Damien Grant's picture

"Which was brutally crushed due to Obama not giving a shit"

The green revolution was crushed by the government in Iran. Not by Obama. Do not blame him for the crimes of others.

Why not blame Putin, Singh, Cameron, Key? They also decided to do nothing for whatever reason.

I am not doing anything about the poor in Kenya. Is their hunger my fault now?

he wasn't there again today

Damien Grant's picture

Yes, Richard, I am belittling you because you choose to pretend to be something you are not.

You held yourself out earlier as someone who studied Islam because you wish to know the enemy. I took you at face value. It appears now that you have done no such thing. You decided that Islam was evil and have read a few books and websites that confirm your view. This is acceptable if, like Doug, you make it clear that this is what you did.

You claimed to have made a study of Islam when you have not. You have not even read the book at the religion’s heart. It is a small book (you would not know that, of course).

You cannot understand Islam because you live in a bubble of ignorance entirely of your own making. That is your choice, it is a valid choice, and I will not criticise you for that but I will call you out if you profess to be something that you are not.

I have been telling you that the enemy lies in the cultures from which the jihadists spring and not in Islam in isolation. It is not saying that Islam is a religion of peace, it is not saying we do not face a threat, it is not saying we should not fight back. It is not even saying that Islam is not part of the problem, but the existence of Indonesia and Malaysia should be enough to tell even the simplest of village idiots that because someone is a Muslim does not make them an enemy of the west.

It is possible to be a Muslim, a believer in democracy, freedom of religion and an enemy of Jihad. It is statically less likely if they are Muslim than if they are Christian, Hindu, atheist or pagan, it is possible (there are entire nations filled with such people, after all). Even if Islam is everything you claim it is, I am still right because a religion is only a part of the mental landscape that people live in. Cognitive dissonance. Google it.

By the looks of it

Jules Troy's picture

He is pretty ramped up on "something"!! Lmao

I think lunatic Alex Jones needs...

Marcus's picture

...those pills!

Damien

gregster's picture

I must re-submit or adjust the sentiments of my last post. Yes, you have your head screwed on, on many matters excepting Islam. My comment was so dry as to be incomprehensible, it seems.

Richard

Jules Troy's picture

The fact that he resorts to ad homonym attacks and character assassination as his preferred method of argumentation speaks volumes as to the validity of his position.  Leonid at least argued in good faith(for the most part).

btw Dhimmian

Coptic refers to Coptic christians in Egypt.

Green movement refers to the student rebellion in Iran in 2009 Which was brutally crushed due to Obama not giving a shit.

More belittling. If that's

Richard Wiig's picture

More belittling. If that's your want, then so be it. One good thing about Leonid, who was as wrong as you are on this issue, at least he addressed the ideas as opposed to attacking the messenger. He is one step above you for that.

Yesterday upon a tear, I met a Muslim who wasn't there...

Damien Grant's picture

Just so we remain clear. Bali is Hindu, Timor is Catholic. You are not exactly Lawrence of Arabia, are you? You met some Muslim women on a bus, well done. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and you met one on a bus while on holiday back in the 80’s.

I have not heard of your experts but a quick check tells me Andrew Bostom is a doctor who blogs on Islam. Robert Spencer co-founded Stop Islamization of America; not exactly an objective academic is he?

They may or may not have any valid insights, that is not the issue, the issue is you decided Islam was evil and sought out books that confirmed your world view.

I do not know where you live, presumably New Zealand, but the fact that the only Muslim you have talked to you met on a bus whilst on holiday confirms that you live a closed, closeted, narrow life where your views go unchallenged by others, by facts, or by experience.

Allah be praised, you might be right about Islam, but your lack of understanding of the world you live in renders yours views irrelevant because your perspective is so narrow. If you have only every drunk coffee, how can you compare it to tea? You know nothing of the world, of Islam, of Muslims, of Arabia, of views contrary to your own.

I occasionally read Robert Fisk. I treat his conclusions with suspicion because he has a default anti-western bias, but he can back up his bias with facts, insights and analysis. It would help if you could back up your bias with facts, insights and analysis, but you cannot. You once met a Muslim on a bus.

"The bible, man, that is a

Jules Troy's picture

"The bible, man, that is a hateful book. We had better ban that religion on this evidence, do you think JT? How about you go online and find some more 'evidence' for me."

Well I cannot say I disagree with you there it is a horrible book!

Oh

Damien Grant's picture

Thanks,

You too Greg.

Agreed, Commander

gregster's picture

Islamic supremacists, btw, are not anti-West. They are anti anything unIslamic. I think it's important not to lose sight of that.

Thank you.

Take your own advice...

Richard Wiig's picture

...and deal with the message rather than shooting the messenger. It might be fun for you, but you're still merely making things up to support your flimsy view. For the record I have travelled in Indonesia, from Bali through to the edge of Timor. I met many warm and friendly muslims there, and more than once heard the call the prayer. A friend and I befriended a muslim woman who was robbed on a bus trip we were on. She put us up at her parents place and gave us a guided tour around many islands, visiting many of her friends. It was a great trip.

You belittle people like Robert Spencer, Bat Yeor, Andrew Bostom, et al, once again, shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message, and you have the gall to expect others to give you better. As I said before, you are an arrogant prick. You've been to the Middle East. Well so fucking what. Robert Fisk has spent much of his life in the Middle East, but a bigger anti-Western leftist that whitewashes Islam would be hard to find. So much for him having been to the Middle East.

Here's a couple of books that are more enlightening on Islam than both you and Robert Fisk put together, despite you both having been to the Middle East:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lega...

and

http://www.amazon.com/The-Qaed...

Both have been written by people you ignorantly belittle, without having the decency to even digest what they have to say first. The second book is interesting. It shows what Al Qaeda says to people such as yourself, and the completely different message they address to muslims. They aim to fool us, and they definitely fool you.

Oh

gregster's picture

"Which is why I prefer to live in a country where the death toll by homocide is low."
You've been fortunate to be born in a recently relatively tolerant part of the globe. But even so, in this day and age I would advise one knows exactly who one's 'dealing' with. You strike me as an individual with his head screwed on and my advice is probably superfluous.

exactly

Damien Grant's picture

The principle of being able to protect one's life is the salient issue - not what-ifs.


Which is why I prefer to live in a country where the death toll by homocide is low.

"If the government had not

gregster's picture

"If the government had not [enacted weapon-free zones], would the death toll be more or less than what it is now? If there were more guns in cinemas and schools, maybe there would be less mass murder killings.." The principle of being able to protect one's life is the salient issue - not what-ifs.

"Palestinians youths are brainwashed into warful hatred

"They are not, actually. A tiny fraction are.." That's agreeing with my statement. I didn't say all (how could I say all were?).

Here's a link to demonstrate how some Americans are seeing the gun issue.

If Barack Obama issues an executive order to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, then a few million real Americans need to show up in Washington with our guns and exercise our Constitutional Right to petition our government for redress of our complaints and if that does not work, our founding fathers recognized the need to alter or abolish the form of government we live under.

rw

Damien Grant's picture

Yes, as I said, you have read a few anti-Islamic websites. I am sure you said you had read the Koran, but I am not going to troll through your posts to find what you said.

So, to be clear:

You have not been to any Arab or Muslim countries.
You do not know any Muslims
You have never had an intelligent conversation with a Muslim (ordering a Kebab does not count)
You have not read the Koran
You have read some books by those who are known to have formed (rightly or wrongly) an anti-Islamic world view.
You did not understand that Indonesia was Muslim until I pointed it out.
You thought Turkey was a form of chicken and not a member of NATO, until recently an ally of Israel, and a secular nation.
You thought the green revolution had something to do with agriculture in India
You think a Coptic is a type of crossword puzzle.

Yep. An internet expert. No question.

Deceptive.

Richard Wiig's picture

I haven't been the slightest bit deceptive. You jump to so many conclusions and false assumptions it's unreal. What I have said, consistently, is that I have looked into Islam, through authors such as Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Bat Ye Or, Sayyid Qutb, etc...

It is the Pony!

Damien Grant's picture

2) “I have not advocated acting cautiously.” No, I did. Meaning caution with Muslim immigration.

Well, we agree there.

Fact is crims have guns.

In the US perhaps, and organised criminals certainly, but most low level street thugs and rat-bags in New Zealand struggle to gain access to weapons. Mostly they resort to shotguns that they saw the barrels off. Useful for an armed hold-up and killing your wife’s brother, but the lack of easy access to anonymous weapons contributes, I think, to a much lower murder rate in NZ, but I am not an expert in this area, unlike everyone else here.

I mean the government has already disarmed citizens in areas – hence the mass shootings mainly confined to those areas. I believe I made that clear.

Yes, okay, but what is the counter-factual? If the government had not done that, would the death toll be more or less than what it is now? If there were more guns in cinemas and schools, maybe there would be less mass murder killings but maybe more testerone related random killings by twenty two year old morons with guns, or worse, Jihadists!

I tend to disagree. They do not know how to flourish.

That may or not be the case but that is not what you said. You referred to their economy, which cannot flourish given the political environment that they operate under. If you want to make a comparison, compare Israel and Jordan. In any event, it is irrelevant. The economic success of a people does not equate to anything here. I am confused how we got to Israel.

Palestinians youths are brainwashed into warful hatred

They are not, actually. A tiny fraction are, most just want to sell watches and get laid.

We do need to rein in the scope to have a reasonable crack or one (or perhaps both) of us would be talking shit back and forth till the Caliphate comes.

Disagree, we need to see this in context. A five year old (or Doug and Richard) can be surprised by a pony and think that this pony is the greatest thing EVER! Those who have seen a few ponys should know that ponys come and go. They are all a little different, but we should not make the mistake that the five year old does and lose our heads over it.

JT 2

Damien Grant's picture

Read the Bible. Honestly, you idiots that crib stuff from websites thinking it gives you some insight, you know NOTHING. Get out of your southern red-neck hillbilly log cabin and get on a plane. Your ignorance and closed minded stupidity is stunning.

Here are some counter quotes I cribbed from the internet. It proves nothing, other than to demonstrate that for every stupid hate filled Koran quote I can find a stupid hate filled biblical one.

Leviticus, Chapter 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Leviticus, Chapter 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus, Chapter 20:12
And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them
Leviticus, Chapter 20:15
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast*
Leviticus, Chapter 24:16
And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name [of Jehovah], shall be put to death.
Leviticus, Chapter 20:13
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

* Why kill the Beast! What did the raped beast do wrong?

The bible, man, that is a hateful book. We had better ban that religion on this evidence, do you think JT? How about you go online and find some more 'evidence' for me.

JT 1: Murder counts. Shoulder bumb does not.

Damien Grant's picture

What is interesting is the fact that you went to such lengths to find evidence to support your views. The data you provided that the only area that the UK did worse than the US was in drug offences (which are offences committed by the government against its citizens, not real crime at all) and assault rates; and we all know how easily the British bruise. I said look at the homicide rates. Took me five seconds to find it.

Nation.....................Per 100,000............Total number
United States...........4.8.........................14,748
United Kingdom........1.2.........................722

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

US gun laws result in about nine thousand dead Americans per annum. If you wish to defend the US gun laws on principle, then do so, but do not lie about the facts. There is a lot of lying and wishful thinking going on here.

Damien

gregster's picture

2) “I have not advocated acting cautiously.”

No, I did. Meaning caution with Muslim immigration.

“I am partial to reducing Iran to a parking lot.” OK, you win there. I’d isolate them, bomb the strategic infrastructure and take out every combatant.

“By your 'logic' we should be invading Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco and Saudi Arabia because to you Islam is bad.” Saudi Arabia and the Middle Eastern ‘slime who oppose Israel in particular. That’s why downthread I said I’d start by giving ¾ of the Universe’s Muslims the benefit of the doubt.

3) “Ayn Rand: "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control." I agree.”

I agree too.

(Thanks to Robert Mayhew, Ayn Rand's rare comments on the subject [of gun control]. The first two are from Q&A, the third from an interview with Raymond Newman.

“I do not know enough about [gun control] to have an opinion, except to say that it's not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, noncriminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It's not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn't very practical.” (1971)

“[Gun control] is a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people—they are not carried for hunting animals—and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.” (1973)

“I have given [gun control] no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.” (1980)”

4) "Government prohibition can work very effectively if it has popular support." Prohibition is force. All regulations are force against the right to trade. There are laws against individuals applying force, but you believe the government is exempt.

"Road rules and radio frequencies are my favourite examples." Crikey.

"If the government regulates the process by which people buy guns it will make access to them by the insane and criminally inclined more difficult and will not limit access to those with honest intent." I disagree entirely. You could get what you want from a corrupt employee. Fact is crims have guns.

The conspiracy theory that this is some left-wing agenda to de-arm the population in readiness for a socialist take-over is crazy nonsense.” It’s not that far removed from reality, but not for a socialist takeover – a totalitarian one. We’re already socialist.

But it’s not at all what I’ve suggested. I mean the government has already disarmed citizens in areas – hence the mass shootings mainly confined to those areas. I believe I made that clear.

5) “The reason why the Palestinian economy is rooted is because their economy is under siege. Rightly so in my opinion” Under Hamas they’ve always been “rooted.”

“but your economic argument is shamefully stupid.” I tend to disagree. They do not know how to flourish.

“Comparing the Palestinians to the Nazis is equally stupid.”
Palestinians youths are brainwashed into warful hatred, and are forced to believe that to be martyred is a great honour. The comparison stands, (though in some ways they’re worse than Nazis).

“Israel does not have clean hands. I support her despite this.” Good, but don’t fall into the trap of placing Israel and her enemies on an equally moral footing.

6) "Bullshit. I was.. I am.. I am strident against the threat posed by Jihad.” I apologise for missing your stridency.

“I am not strident against Indonesia because this is a pro-western democracy. You are..” As I’ve explained – certain strains of the ‘slime are more virulently militant, the others can be left alone, preferably by geographical isolation.

“your reasoning is circular.” Thank you for calling it reasoning – though a non sequitur which you in good faith believed well-founded.

7) "Why is this sort of thing always by Muslims?" It isn't. As I said, you lack an appreciation of history. Thirty years ago it was the yellow peril. For forty five years it was the homogeneous communist threat. Seventy years ago it was fascism and Japanese Imperialism. Ninety years ago it was the Hun. At one stage it was Napoleon, the Papists, the Elders of Zion and their non-existent protocols. We are always under threat, internally and externally.” Easy – (fuck me) – I’m talking about post-9/11 here. Or since Bill Clinton’s time. That line of argumentation seems to me to be disingenuous, or at very least unproductive. We do need to rein in the scope to have a reasonable crack or one (or perhaps both) of us would be talking shit back and forth till the Caliphate comes.

8.) “We know now that the communist threat was a paper tiger, but then as now the risk of being hit by a weapon of mass destruction is a real and present danger.” No need to turn Iran into that sparkling glass carpark to rival the original pyramids.

“When we won the cold war those opportunist internal quislings folded back into the mainstream.” That’s the problem – we won the physical effort but lost the battle of ideas. Communist ideas practically run our show. You’re a little casual here.

“The same will be true with the jihadist threat.” That’s why we’re worried. You may be correct that I overestimate the present ‘slime threat, but from your under-estimation of today’s philosophical corruption, I can see its ideas too slotting straight into the education system.

“If we win the external battle, those internally will go with the tide, like seaweed.” Wishful thinking, and not poetic.

Some juicy koran bits

Jules Troy's picture

This is part if an article from islam-watch

CAIR launched its MyJihad ad campaign as a counter to AFDI’s subway and bus ads, inscribed with Jihad-inspiring Quranic verses, such as “Soon shall We cast terror into the heart of unbelievers” (3:151). But CAIR’s ads come with no references from the Quran, Hadith or Sirah—the sacred Islamic texts—that may justify what they are claiming to be real Jihad is actually true. When deceiving and misleading the unaware non-Muslim Americans is the sole purpose of this campaign, that’s the best CAIR could do, especially when Allah, the Muslim God, clearly and unequivocally, exhorts Muslims to do exactly opposite of the messages of those ads. In many verses of the Quran, Allah commands Muslims not to make friendship with non-Muslims, never to come to their support, and to cut all social ties with them (see verses 25/28, 6/68, 28/86, 11/113, 4/89, 4/144, 60/1, 60/13, 9/16, 9:23 and many more). A few such verses are cited below:

Quran 60:13: “O you who have believed, do not make allies of a people with whom Allah has become angry (i.e. non-Muslims). They have despaired of [reward in] the Hereafter just as the disbelievers have despaired of [meeting] the inhabitants of the graves.

Quran 9:23: “O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Quran 28:86: “…Therefore lend not thou support in any way to those who reject (Allah's Message).

When Muslims are commanded by their God to cut all ties even with their own parents and siblings, if they follow another religion than Islam (see 9:23), how can CAIR talk about Jihad as means of building friendship with non-Muslims?

The Real Jihad

A statistical analysis by politicalislam.com shows that a significant part of the sacred Islamic texts (Quran, Sirah and Hadiths) are devoted to Jihad:

1)   The Quran: a) Meccan verses - 0%,  b) Medinan verses - 24%

2)   Sirah (Prophet’s biography) - 67%

3)   Hadith - 21%

In all, 31% of trilogy of sacred Islamic texts are devoted to Jihad.

Statistics also gives us a measure of the claim that the real jihad is the so-called “Greater Jihad”, an inner struggle with the self, whereas the jihad of the sword is the minor “Lesser Jihad”. But the so-called “Greater jihad” covers only 2% of the Jihad-related texts of the Bukhari hadiths, the remaining 98% is devoted to jihad of the sword, the Lesser Jihad. Therefore, what CAIR’s “MyJihad” ads campaign is highlighting could, at best, be talking about the so-called Greater Jihad, which constitutes only 2% of the Jihad component of Islam. And even then, making friendship with non-Muslims does not fall within the scope of the Lesser Jihad, because it is simply a struggle with the inner self of Muslims. When Lesser Jihad means an inner struggle of Muslims, external elements such as non-Muslims don’t come into the picture at all. And we have also seen that Islamic God clearly and repeatedly forbids Muslims against making friendship or alliance with non-Muslims or coming to their aid, even if they are the parents and sibling. In sum, CAIR’s “MyJihad” ads campaign is out-and-out an attempt to lie and deceive American non-Muslims.

The real Jihad that may concern non-Muslims is therefore the Lesser Jihad, Jihad of the sword, inspired by many violence-inciting Quranic verses, such as:

  1. Quran 3:56: "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
  2. Quran 9:111: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph
  3. Quran 9:123: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
  4. Quran 66:9: "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."
  5. Quran 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
  6. Quran 9:5: "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
  7. Quran 25:52: "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..."

There are many such verses in the Quran. Let us once again take CAIR’s “MyJihad” ad in the context of the last verse (25:52) quoted. The only relationship that this verse allows a Muslim to have with a non-Muslim is “strenuous fighting”. So, can there be a scope for a Muslim to build friendship with non-Muslim?

Here is the whole article Damien.
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/138-jake-neuman/1222-cairs-myjihad-propaganda-campaign-putting-a-happy-face-on-evil.html

Well this is interesting

Jules Troy's picture

http://www.nationmaster.com/co...

So over all yes the US has more gun crimes However the over all crime rate in the uk is higher.

Now are the crimes commited by responsible gun owners using legally owned fire arms? Or are they commited by criminals using illegal fire-arms?

JT

Damien Grant's picture

" If however there is a large probability that the home they are about to break into has an armed citizen they probably are not going to fuck with you"

No. They just arm themselves. If they think you might be armed, best to shoot you, just in case.

But, like for like, what are the homocide rates in the UK and the US? If you want to be precise, that is the honest comparision. It should be on Wikipedia.

"I've never said that I've read the Qur'an."

Damien Grant's picture

Well well well.

So we both have been a little deceptive then haven't we. Perhaps you should, and actually I think you said you have made a study of this faith. How, exactly, then, can you do this without reading the book at its heart? It isn't that long, should take you about three to five hours. Well, maybe a little longer if you need to read the words out loud.

Incredible. Never read the Koran and claims to be an expert in Islam. Like a hobbit writing about tennis. When I said on the other thread I was not going to post any more I was trying to get away from debating you because you are stuck in a mental loop and Doug is just off in a parallel universe.

Greg at least advances his ideas along and takes abuse well as he gives it. Something to be admired in that.

1,2,3....

Damien Grant's picture

1 "So you now consider that, yes, Sharia could make progress." Yes, the west is capable of committing unspeakable acts of stupidity. It has in the past and it will do so in the future. No question. France is destroying its economy as we speak. Its current president is a far greater threat that the rioting banlieues, (at least in the short term). But do not overstate the problem. I am unfamiliar with the UK situation, but I suspect that Sharia in the UK is some form of voluntary, opt-in, namby-panby 'make people feel included' bullshit. No one is going to lose their hand any time soon, or ever, actually.

2) I have not advocated acting cautiously. I have said previously that I support drone attacks, I am partial to reducing Iran to a parking lot and am happy to see Kabul under foreign control. Unlike Doug I am not adverse to the West putting boots on the ground and bombers in the sky to protect our position. I just want to be sure we have the strategy and the tactics right. There is no point attacking Spain if the threat comes from France. By your 'logic' we should be invading Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco and Saudi Arabia because to you Islam is bad, not the people who attack us. You seem to think they are sweet folk who have been tragicially mislead by a naughty book of nasty words. If we can only get them to read a different book they will stop being mean to us.

3) Ayn Rand: "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control." I agree. This does not mean guns should be removed from civilian access but the unregulated US system gives rise to alternative centres of military power, even if this is one man and his gun. It is a stupid system that is driven by a historical quirk. The New Zealand system allows you to buy a gun for hunting, sport, or commercial use but only if you can satisfy the police that you are a responsible person and are able to keep the guns safely secured when not in use. This is hardly oppressive, allows sane responsible people to have access to guns and keeps them away from the most obvious nutcases and criminals and results in a very limited black-market.

4) Government prohibition can work very effectively if it has popular support. Road rules and radio frequencies are my favourite examples. If the government regulates the process by which people buy guns it will make access to them by the insane and criminally inclined more difficult and will not limit access to those with honest intent. The conspiracy theory that this is some left-wing agenda to de-arm the population in readiness for a socialist take-over is crazy nonsense. Conservatives in most western nations favour gun laws. Conservatives, however, by their nature, favour the status quo. Rush Limbaugh would be a communist if he was in East Germany in 1970. The high level of unregulated guns in the US does complicate this for that country though, as well as the antipathy towards gun laws, so what works in New Zealand may not work in the US. I do not know.

5) You reference to the economy of Palestine is insipid. The reason why the Palestinian economy is rooted is because their economy is under siege. Rightly so in my opinion, especially in Gaza as it is governed by a terrorist organisation that denies the right of Israel to exist, but your economic argument is shamefully stupid. Jordan, which is not as successful as Israel to be sure, is a long way from Gaza and the West Bank economically. Comparing the Palestinians to the Nazis is equally stupid. The Palestinians have a legitimate complaint. The Jews have an equally valid justification for what they did in 1947-9. The Jews won and have acted with remarkable restraint ever since. The Arabs mistreatment of the Palestinians is much worse than the mistreatment handed out by Jerusalem, but let us not get sucked in the lies that frame that debate. Israel does not have clean hands. I support her despite this. I do not feel the need to lie about the facts to justify my support for this nation. Clearly you are too embarrassed to do the same.

6) "Osama Bin Laden brought that evil text to life for his own ends, without doubt, and he has many supporters as seen by the celebrations of the filth worldwide at the 3000 dead Americans." Yes. This is the only honest thing you have said. "his own ends". He used Islam, he was not driven by it. It was a tool for him, not the reason for his actions. No doubt he believed his version of his faith, but I believe I am a great lover, we all convince ourselves of what it suits us to think.

6) "If SOLO was conducted over the airwaves in 1939 you’d be saying Hitler’s intentions were harmless." Bullshit. Without foundation. I was strident against the Soviet Union. I am strident against the status quo of the current nanny state. I am strident against the threat posed by Jihad. I am not strident against the threat posed by pixies, because pixies do not exist. I am not strident against Indonesia because this is a pro-western democracy. You are, however, if you were honest to yourself, required to denounce this nation as a threat to the west. You do not, of course, because your reasoning is circular.

7) "Why is this sort of thing always by Muslims?" It isn't. As I said, you lack an appreciation of history. Thirty years ago it was the yellow peril. For forty five years it was the homogeneous communist threat. Seventy years ago it was fascism and Japanese Imperialism. Ninety years ago it was the Hun. At one stage it was Napoleon, the Papists, the Elders of Zion and their non-existent protocols. We are always under threat, internally and externally.

8.) There is nothing special about this threat. Indeed it is very similar to that posed by the Communists. The enemy is mostly external, but it has fellow travellers in our midst. We know now that the communist threat was a paper tiger, but then as now the risk of being hit by a weapon of mass destruction is a real and present danger. When we won the cold war those opportunist internal quislings folded back into the mainstream. The same will be true with the jihadist threat. If we win the external battle, those internally will go with the tide, like seaweed.

You imparted earlier “The

Richard Wiig's picture

You imparted earlier “The causes of [anti-West] violence is not, in itself, religion.” Why is this sort of thing always by Muslims?

Damien talks constantly of all the other reasons but as yet hasn't identified a single one. The reasons the Islamic supremacists give are straightforward and clear. It is not simplistic, or stupid, or naive to take them at their word.

Islamic supremacists, btw, are not anti-West. They are anti anything unIslamic. I think it's important not to lose sight of that.

Constant assumptions and context dropping.

Richard Wiig's picture

I've never said that I've read the Qur'an. Just another example you making things up.

there are verses in the Koran that declare that there shall be no compulsion in religion

There are, but they don't alter the fact that Islam is full of, and thrives on, compulsion. What level of comfort do you expect people to take from such a verse, a verse that has never, in the entire history of Islam, translated into a peaceful and tolerant religion?

Damien

gregster's picture

“And if the UK is going a little batty over .. Sharia law”

So you now consider that, yes, Sharia could make progress. Whose fault that is is another issue. My point is that it is happening. I’ve already suggested what’s to blame.

But you’d just said “[Sharia] is not practised in most Muslim nations so I'm thinking the west is pretty safe.” The West is not safe, the West is falling for it.

My earlier (fallacious but you wouldn't have realised) illustration of the 250 parts per million was to propose acting cautiously when, if by not doing so, death is a likely result.

“If I hit my own head with a hammer do not blame the person who made the hammer.” Well you shouldn’t be talking as sensibly as that. You’ve just been blaming guns and nutters for so many shootings. Politicians should too be thinking that. Don’t blame the weapon. Politicians repugnantly ban the citizens’ weapons while they wield unlimited force - governmental guns.

Most if not all of the killers are products of a state education and/or results of failed public medicine, in all likelihood.

“some silly applications made by the Maori for various things” Equally irrelevant. Yes, it happens.

“I have no idea if gun prohibition will work.” Why not, you’re old enough to know a few things? That you can’t conclude from every other failed form of prohibition that controls have the opposite effect to those intended is staggering. I trust you’re not winding me up.

“Given the level of guns in circulation in the United States that country faces some difficult issues” Once again - it’s not the number of guns. The more guns – the more safe citizens are.

“I am in support of the gun control system down here.” So am I as long as I can still purchase.

“The US can sort out their own mess.” Best wishes for the US from me too.

“You continue to blame Islam in isolation as if all of the other factors had no bearing” Islam in practice is the evil common to those crimes. Palestinians closely resemble Nazis, but lack Teutonic knowhow. They have 45% unemployment. They’re propped up by altruist foreign aid. Meanwhile, relatively, Israel thrives. Why is that?

“You are naïve beyond credibility to think that his ambitions were driven by his faith alone.” Osama Bin Laden brought that evil text to life for his own ends, without doubt, and he has many supporters as seen by the celebrations of the filth worldwide at the 3000 dead Americans.

If SOLO was conducted over the airwaves in 1939 you’d be saying Hitler’s intentions were harmless.

You imparted earlier “The causes of [anti-West] violence is not, in itself, religion.” Why is this sort of thing always by Muslims?

the UK

Damien Grant's picture

And if the UK is going a little batty over PC application of Sharia law whose fault is that? The British. Good Grief Charlie Brown. If I hit my own head with a hammer do not blame the person who made the hammer.

Down here we have some silly applications made by the Maori for various things (and to be fair we have some legitimate claims made by them as well.) If the New Zealand parliament wants to grant Maori their silly requests do we blame the Maori? No. It is our own fault.

If the British parliament wants to kow-tow to whatever special interests is driving the local Allah Bus then do not blame those with their hand-out. They are simply responding to learned behaviour. Blame the person doing the handing out.

I have no idea if gun prohibition will work. Given the level of guns in circulation in the United States that country faces some difficult issues so I do not wish to presume to have an opinion on that, but down here in Godzone where access to guns has always been reasonably well controlled we do not have a problem with a high level of gun-related violence (relative to the US), so I am in support of the gun control system down here.

The US can sort out their own mess.

With respect to jihadist violence, you totally, absolutely, completely, fail to see my point.

The 9/11 attacks and the others that you refer were not “the direct result of Islam”. They were committed for a number of reasons, including the political ambitions of the men who planned and financed the attacks and the failure of the cultures from when these men sprung to reign them in. You continue to blame Islam in isolation as if all of the other factors had no bearing, as if these men were salmon swimming up stream without thought or reason.

You, critically and incredibly, take people like Osama Bin Laden at face value, you accept him as being the pious dedicated warrior of faith. You are naïve beyond credibility to think that his ambitions were driven by his faith alone.

If you really think that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

Guess what damien

Jules Troy's picture

Whether you are killed with a "legal" knife or a "harmless" bat or a gun you are still deadddddddddd.  I was being objective.  Criminals are like hyenas if they know you are more than likely defenceless they will be more likely do what they want.  If however there is a large probability that the home they are about to break into has an armed citizen they probably are not going to fuck with you. 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

And you're not kidding Dame

gregster's picture

Is the heat getting to you today? Do have a cold one.

Sharia law is steadily being recognised in the UK when sentencing crims, and while investigating cases, and even in deciding whether investigation will go ahead and make the Force look racist or culturally insensitive.

3000 and counting in the 9/11 atrocity - a direct result of Islam. Not a case of take a plane and kill. They were devout Islam-inspired actions. Then there are the ongoing 'friendly-fire' attacks. They killed ambassador Stevens. Your mate Obama cried crocodile tears. Hillary went so far as to self-injure to redirect the heat. Masters.

The reason any numbers are killed by nut jobs is because the government has enacted a no-go zone for concealed weapons. So the killers are aided and abetted by the same politicians in whom you would place your trust for protection. Killers find it like shooting fish in a barrel thanks to the government. Picture theatres, shopping precincts, places of education. Brilliant move?

My "right to life argument is driven by ideology." It's based on the facts of Man's nature. And it's true unlike your idiology.

"I am threatened by a culture that fails to control lunatics with weapons"

I wouldn't place weapons in the hands of criminals while disarming the population.

I wouldn't place the blame on the culture. It is leftist statists who have created this mess. You're not stupid enough, I'm being presumptuous, to believe that gun prohibition would work.

liar liar

Damien Grant's picture

Country Total firearm-related death rate
 Mexico 11.14
 United States 10.2
 South Africa 9.41
 New Zealand 2.66
 United Kingdom 0.25

Per 100,000 population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Look, lax gun laws lead to dead people. At least Binswanger admitted this and made his argument on that basis. Jules, you are a liar.

'violent crime' is a subjective term. A fire arm death is an objective fact. On its own this fact does not mean we should have strict gun laws but make your argument from an honest position.

Because you need to lie to bolster your argument should make it clear to you that your argument is bullshit, driven by ideology and not reason.

Hrrrmm

Jules Troy's picture

Violent crime in UK. 2100/100k population.  Very little gun ownership

violent crime in usa 466/100k population 

 

 

sharia law

Damien Grant's picture

Is not practised in most Muslim nations so I'm thinking the west is pretty safe.

I am much more likely, if I was American, to be killed by a nutcase with a handgun than I am to be killed by a jihadist. So your right to life argument is driven by ideology and not facts.

I'm opposed to immigration but I'm not threatened by 100000 Muslims. I am threatened by a culture that fails to control lunatics with weapons. Sometimes they are Muslim communities. Sometimes they are the gun nuts. I make no distinction.

Damien

gregster's picture

On the subject of this thread, the common principle between personal gun ownership and Islamic immigration to the West is the right to one's life.

My comments are not race related but specific to supremacist Islam, at a time of war of its making.

I generally agree with Harry regarding gun ownership. The principle doesn't translate to help your case.

He's talking about each individual gun owner having the right to self-protection for times when government agents are not able to protect. This a corollary of the right to life.

Every individual's right to life is compromised when there are outlaw citizens constituting an objective threat to life and liberty.

Do criminals have the right to bear arms? They do not because they've become an objective threat.

Do we allow 100,000 Islam believers to congregate and impose their coercive primitivism on each other, along with a stated threat to the infidel?

We don't if we're clued up. Sharia law must be resisted, not invited. It is ignorant to assume that 'slime in the West will modernise. I'm not confident in Westerners, let alone savages.

The right to life is threatened by banning gun ownership.

to quote Binswanger

Damien Grant's picture

"People understand the wrongness of collectivist thinking in other cases. They would indignantly reject the idea that a member of a given racial group is under suspicion because 10 percent of those with his skin color commit crimes. But the individualist approach also applies to gun ownership and concealed carrying of guns: group ratios offer no evidence about what a given individual will do.

The fact that a certain percentage of domestic quarrels end in a shooting is no grounds for saying your ownership of a gun is a threat to the members of your household. Likewise, the fact that there are a certain number of accidental injuries from guns is no justification for regulating or banning the ownership of guns for everyone. And the tragic fact that the psychotic killer at Newtown used a gun to kill school children is zero grounds for disarming teachers and school personnel.

The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force.

Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished."

Your argument is flawed Greg because you are looking at the wrong thing. The causes of violence is not, in itself, religion. There must always be something else.

But apply your logic to gun ownership. People with handguns kill. They do a lot more killing than Muslims. So why not ban gun ownership?

Our governments are

gregster's picture

Our governments are unjustifiably ‘protecting’ citizens against non-proven chemical threats. Salt, fat, DDT, CFCs, CO2, caffeine, nut allergies, carbon footprints, they have stepped in and screwed markets for the worse.

What confidence can anyone have that these same non-thinking politicians will get it right in the Islam versus the West situation? They won’t get it right. Everything they touch turns rotten.

This is not a case of banning ideas. It’s a case of being able to pursue one’s own happiness. This is made impossible by the quantifiable, inherent threat within Islam. Mixed economy democracy has rendered itself incapable of resistance. Some of us know this. It’s about seeing the bigger picture. The full context.

A petrified lone Muslim armed with his tattered prayer mat is not a threat. But get 10,000 of the bastards and you’re too late. Is a small dose of poison OK?

We can’t have it. Good people are battling in almost every societal field already. It’s a matter of self defense. It’s lawful to take out an objective threat. It’s moronic to welcome one in the front door. Islam should have been caged after 9/11. The opposite has occurred. Don’t be on the appeasers’ side, the side of ignorant altruists.

There are 1600,000,000 Islam ‘believers.’ Say I give ¾ the benefit of the doubt. 400,000,000 left. How many killers have we identified so far? Let’s underestimate 1000. That gives me 0.00025% killers. 250 parts per million. Magnitudes more lethal than relatively harmless, already banned substances.

self evident?

Damien Grant's picture

But Greg it is not self-evident. Even Doug says only half of Muslims support Jihad, so half does not.

The number of jihadists is tiny, the number of Muslims is vast. The jihadists may be enabled by the communities that they spring from, but many jihadists are spurned, arrested, and contained by the Muslim communities from which they spring.

Self evident? Not at all.

I agree that the west is conceptually-crippled politically correct, but I disagree on the nature of the threat.

Damien

gregster's picture

Or we could look at it this way.

Many foods and medicines have been banned by governments based on results obtained via the force feeding of mice. Doses way beyond possible human ingestion. These bans are based on parts per million or billion levels for which causality cannot be demonstrated.

By contrast, it’s self-evident that ‘slime carrying the Islam virus are lethal. Why is there no ban based on this growing threat? A threat made worse by the vulnerabilities of the conceptually-crippled politically correct West.

to bring it back on topic...

Damien Grant's picture

The claim is that guns do not kill people, people kill people.

If someone with a gun kills, we are asked to look beyond the gun and to the motives of the person using the gun. Do not blame the gun, goes the pro-gun lobby argument.

I say the same with Islam. If someone uses Islam as a reason to kill, look beyond what they say and uncover the real motivation behind their desire to do what they do, or the motivation of those who recruit and train them.

People lie, religion is no different.

What people say does not constrain them

Damien Grant's picture

Doug Doug Doug. You think that because I do not see the world as you do that I am misguided. I am not.

I am not saying there is not a threat and my views on immigration have already been stated. I am saying that you do not understand the threat because you are looking at it through a prism of Christianity and not history.

Once upon a time the threat to the Roman Empire was believed to be Christians. Elizabeth 1st reign was perceived to be under constant attack by papists. The reformation was said to be the end of European civilisation.

Religion is unimportant. It is of little consequence because human beings pick up and put down religions like they do shirts. I plead ignorance of the Koran because it suits me but there are verses in the Koran that declare that there shall be no compulsion in religion and other sections that say non-believers should be smited above the neck. There are verses that urge the protection of Jews, Sabines and Christians and sections that imply that those living in a Muslim ruled land must obey Muslim laws no matter their personal views.

The Koran is a crystal ball that allows you to see in it whatever you wish to see in it. If some people wish to see peace and love, then they will find it. If others wish to see hatred and death, then there it is.

Richard claims to have studied the Koran, he has not, he has read a few anti-Islamic hate sites. Kyrel wants a free country where only some ideas are acceptable. You claim to see a massive conspiracy of Muslims to take over the west, but no such conspiracy exists and such a claim shows your lack of understanding of the world you live in. The west may lose, I am not saying we are destined to prevail, but if we fail it will not be to an organised attack.

The idea that there will be a massive caliphate headed up by Iran is stupid, and you were smart to delete it, because it shows a stunning ignorance of the Middle East. The Saudi’s hate Iran. Syria is a war by proxy between different Muslim nations. Iran and Iraq tore each other apart for a decade and they are both Shia Muslims.

Where there is a threat, and I am saying one exists, is that the cultural ideas and values of many from the middle east, combined with a medieval interpretation of their religion, and the liberal values of co-existence by many in the west, create a breeding ground for extremism that is both tolerated in their home countries and not confronted in democratic ones.

We know, from looking at nations like Turkey and Indonesia, that it is possible for Islamic nations to co-operate with the west and to adopt western values and ideas, but we also know, from the Taleban and Al Queda, that the opposite is also true.

We know from looking at Egypt, where ten percent of the population is Christian, that co-existence is possible, but we also know that this population feels simultaneously under threat by the mob and protected by the army.

We have no option but to engage with the Muslim world. We cannot ignore it or wish it away, nor should we want to, but we do need to take the blinkers off, look at the world as it is, and decide how to best protect ourselves from the current threat.

Pakistan is a perfect example. Here we have a nuclear armed nation with a western friendly government that turns a blind eye to drone attacks but equally fails to confront the Islamic crazies in its midst, hides Osama Bin Laden, and simultaneously arms and shelters the Taleban in Afghanistan and assists the west in attacking them.

That, Doug, is the world the west is forced to live in; messy and confusing.

Declaring all Muslims to be a threat ignores a critical truth, that Muslims are people, and people are subject to more than one impulse. If there are 60m Muslims in Europe, do not assume that they will put the interests of their faith ahead of their own interests. A few will, most will not. They are people first. If it suits these people to interpret their faith to allow them to live in nice houses, drive nice cars, send their children to good schools then they are much more likely to do that than put their lives on hold for Allah.

How often have we seen a televangelist get caught with their pants down? What does the Pope say about condoms and what do Catholics do about it? What people say does not constrain what they can be incentivised to do.

Bring back the 7' Russian

Richard Goode's picture

Sign the petition!

You took out all the *really* funny bits! Sad

Doug!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You took out all the *really* funny bits! Sad

Haha

Jules Troy's picture

Thank god I'm an atheist! (Pun intended)

a Hail Mary to the ruler of the heavens to save Damian's soul

Doug Bandler's picture

Lunatic Americans with access to handguns kill many more Americans than jihadists ever do. When was the last time a jihadist blew up an American school?

Damian, Damian, Damian,

I know you are smarter than this.

Think through this my friend. Domestic gun violence is of a different TYPE than Islamic Jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood has a PLAN for domestic conquest. They are MOVING in a direction of stealth infiltration of the US government. They have already done so. They may even be patterning the Communists. They control the world's most important commodity (at least to a certain extent), and they are as we speak engaged in building a pan-Islamic neo-caliphate with Iran as the head. They have 60 million Muslims on the European continent effectively holding Europe by the throat. THE PIECES ARE IN PLACE DAMIAN. They add up to something. Can you not see this?

Oh god they have eyes but they can not see, they have ears but they can not hear, they have neo-cortexes but they will not use them. Oh heavenly father, send down some miracle of hope that my wayward libertarian brethren will see and then understand the evil of the Mohamadeans and thus they will become strong with goodness and virtue in their hearts and then they will defend the remnants of liberty bequeathed to us by our mighty forefathers who themselves understood the depravity of the Musslemen.

Heavenly father, prove your mighty existence and cleanse the sins of ignorance of your libertarian brethren and sistren. And while you are at it, cleanse the sins of outright KASSless stupidity of the mainstream Objectivist orthodoxy and show them too the truth regarding the interlopers and warriors of the Crescent Moon. Yes, Dear heavenly father, show wisdom too to the phd with a podcast. Make her see both the evil of the immigration of Mohammad's soldiers and the evil of omitting neolithic carbs from the diet. Give her the strength to cast aside such folly and such sin and become a better, less annoying, woman tomorrow then the ditzy know-nothing sinner that she has been today and yesterday.

Such is my humble request before Dr. Goode's omnipotent heavenly father.

I understand

Damien Grant's picture

Ok. So what are you going to do with muslims who are natural born citizens of your civilised countries?

I find the idea that you are going to get, presumably the state, to ban a religion a little Stalinist I must admit but so long as I know where on the lunatic fringe you belong. Kyrel; Countries than ban ideas are not civilised counties. They most surely not libertarian ones nor, by definition, free.

Doug, the reason you do not get sensible responses to your ideas is that your ideas are based on your flawed world view. Like Richard you see the world as you want it to be, not as it is. We all are guilty of this to an extent but you inhabit a timothy McVeigh planet where I suspect you can not see reason when it is presented to you.

The logistics of banning a religion are difficult even if you could manufacture the moral justification, and anyone with a grade school history can tell you the practice usually backfires.

And of course, you are seeing enemies where none exist. Jihadists are the enemy. Not all Muslims. (Have you heard of Indonesia?)

Lunatic Americans with access to handguns kill many more Americans than jihadists ever do. When was the last time a jihadist blew up an American school?

Richard says "know your enemy". Good advice, but perhaps work out who is killing you first to know who is an enemy.

No Sophistry

Doug Bandler's picture

Or are we going to follow Binswanger and think that until the Muslim has committed a crime he shall judged innocent despite Richard and Doug having condemned them in advance of being guilty by association?

I've answered this many times. Islam is a hostile military movement whose goal is world conquest. Any person who identifies themselves as Muslim, whether peaceful or not does not matter, is ASSISTING the military movement known as Islam. On those grounds Islam should be banned and Muslims deported. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. I have seen otherwise very smart Objectivists come unraveled when I make that argument. I get no counter just emotionalism.

Jihadi Gun Rights

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Damien -- If a country is truly civilized and free it won't allow Muslims, or other such lunatics and mass-murderers, inside its borders, neither as citizens nor even as visitors.

yes but. ..

Damien Grant's picture

It allows the jihadists guns?

As Richard has shown with his study of the Koran and his refusal to acknowledge the existence of Turkey, Islamic enemies are everywhere! So will not liberal gun laws allow these Quislings access to the very weapons with which they will kill us all?

Or are we going to follow Binswanger and think that until the Muslim has committed a crime he shall judged innocent despite Richard and Doug having condemned them in advance of being guilty by association?

How will Richard and Doug square this circle?

I look forward to some creative sophistry.

Faint praise

Richard Goode's picture

Faint praise seems to be the best that Binswanger's fellow Objectivites can muster.

Give the man a break! Binswanger's piece is short and sweet and draws upon the very best of Rand.

I'm not sure how New Zealand

Richard Wiig's picture

I'm not sure how New Zealand works, but America doesn't. NZ has had it's share of mass murderers. BTW, there's a mountain of evidence of an Islamic fifth column.

"Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012"

Harry Binswanger, Ph.D.

Neil Parille's picture

I'll say more about Binswanger later, but here is the kind of cultural criticism you get from him. It's an op-ed called, I kid you not, "The Ten Commandments vs. America."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/Ne...

Of course, the founders were not "mostly Deists," but that's typical Objectivist clap-trap.

fifth column

Damien Grant's picture

If, as some here claim, that their is a fifth column of Islam jihadists in our midst (in spite of no evidence) why the frick would you advocate removing gun laws?

Lindsay decries an airhead generation (of which there is a mountain range of evidence, sadly). The world is full of idiots. My liberty is put at risk by allowing dickheads to have easy access to guns.

The nz system, which allows anyone who wants a gun to get one, subject to passing a police check, works.

The American system, clearly does not.

Anaemia rules

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Harry concludes:

Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished.

Somehow I don't think that's going to happen. That's just glib tokenism.

We all know what has to be done now.

The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So what the hell is the hold-up?

Oh, I forgot. It's Airhead America.

Theoretically Sound But KASSless

Doug Bandler's picture

Binswanger was at one point very anti-gun for an Objectivist. He has changed considerably. He does need to expand on the difference b/w "brandishing" and open carry but he is definitely coming down on the pro-gun ownership side. And of course, as per his style, he is grounding this in individual rights. That is good.

But...

There is something anemic about his article. Whenever Objectivists focus on just "individual rights" they come across as myopic. There is so much else to discuss with the Sandy Hook slaughter:

1) no-gun zones
2) no institutionalizing of the crazy anymore
3) why this is happening with young males (oooh that's a dangerous road for an Objecivist to travel down - might not like what you find there)
4) fear and failure to pronounce objective judgement against disturbed loner types; ie everyone passing the buck not to offend someone, ie moral non-judgmentalism
5) the danger of disarming a nation's citizenry' ie it makes it easier for tyrannies to emerge

and of course the most important point...

6) how the push to ban guns is an attempt to disarm the country made by the LEFT!!!!

WILL ONE FUCKING MAINSTREAM OBJECTIVIST TAKE NOTE THAT IT IS THE LEFT THAT IS DOING THIS AND THAT IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF AN ENTIRE AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could lose my fucking mind with this shit. Jesus H. fucking Christ what a fucking blind spot in the Objectivist movement. This is a Leftist move meant to advance Leftist tyranny. Binswanger doesn't know this?

I.Could.Spit.

Misses the Target

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Binswanger evades the main point, which is that nation-states today almost universally feature communist roads, in which the gov't literally paves the way for every madman and monster to visit and destroy us. Change the roads to capitalist and private property, and you change and improve the situation radically.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.