'The aggressor state'

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:53:59 GMT <== Politics ==>

Vin Suprynowicz has a very different perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict than you read most places nowadays. Personally, I find it sad that people are killing each other over there, but don't see why it's my business or my problem.

So let us suppose that today some bands of red-blooded young Apache men, aware of the crimes and indignities of the past, managed to smuggle over the Mexican border some rockets and artillery pieces of Iranian or North Korean manufacture, and began driving around the San Carlos Apache Reservation and the Tonto and Coronado National Forests in Southeastern Arizona, firing off these weapons, several times each day, into the American towns of Tucson, Safford, Globe, and Mesa, Arizona.

Let us suppose that -- as these attacks mounted -- every couple of days an innocent white or black or Hispanic American woman, old man, or child was killed.

What do you suppose would happen? I suppose all the law enforcement agencies of Arizona would descend on the San Carlos Reservation, backed up by the National Guard if necessary, hunting for these killers. If the residents were uncooperative, we might see the equivalent of martial law, with roadblocks, warrantless traffic stops, and house-to-house searches (the courts would rule it all illegal, three or four years later), until the miscreants were rounded up, whereupon they would be put on trial for murder.

Would the United Nations squawk? Would the French try to impose a "cease-fire"? Would demonstrators protest this violation of Apache sovereignty by blocking traffic in London or looting and burning parked cars in Paris?

Don't be ridiculous.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (1):

?

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:25:36 GMT

this comparison would seem plausible if there were a few more of the pieces were inserted into the proverbial puzzle.
the united states has been in its grandeur for nearly 300 years.
Palestine of most recent in the last 50 was taken and given to Jewish refugees of WW11 and the Arab inhabitants were forced to live in small fenced areas,Gaza,west bank.
so lets say the U.N. told the British that although they lost the revolution,all of the u.s. inhabitants must move to California and Arizona,all 300 million,while the British refugees can move wherever they find fit.
would the people of this country comply,and if in doing so would they remain compliant?
the answer undoubtedly is NO.

Edit comment

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
The Original Sin
A creative idea for dispensing justice
SHOT Show 2009
The Library of the Pleiades
A magnificent bit of piloting
Be seeing you, Patrick McGoohan
Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M14/20CF
Ruger's Radical New Lightweight Compact Revolver .38 Special LCR
Stimulating Our Way to Rock Bottom
Obama's Gun Grabbing Begins

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair