Saturday, September 27, 2014

The US right is as much of a terrorist threat as are Muslims

First off, there is nothing in the Constitution which allows for a "right" to rebellion.  If Anything, the Constitution is very clear that it prohibits waging war on the US (Article III, Section iii).

Unfortunately, I do not hear many people calling bullshit when people say it is their "right" to own a gun to fight the evil government.

But ponder this:

Let's not forget Timothy McVeigh:



Or Anders Breivik:


Maybe we need to worry about white guys as much as Muslims.

14 comments:

  1. Hey--did you hear about the armed citizen who stopped a follower of "the religion of peace" from beheading a second victim (the victims earned their fates by virtue of declining to convert to Islam)?

    No wonder ISIS is so enthusiastic about "gun control."

    ReplyDelete
  2. By the way, Laci, wanna explain how mass violence committed by an Australian and a Norwegian supports the odd claim that "The US right is as much of a terrorist threat as are Muslims"? If you have to look to other countries for two thirds of your examples, I'd say that you appear to be having some difficulty in coming up with a very damning indictment of "the US right."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no shortage of US examples. Maybe Laci wanted to include those others because of the immensity of their crimes.

      Delete
    2. Maybe Laci wanted to include those others because of the immensity of their crimes.

      Maybe, but the fact that he had to look outside the U.S. in order to find sufficient "immensity" would still seem to undermine the argument that the great danger comes from "the US right."

      Delete
    3. No, he didn't have to. There are plenty of "immensity" right here in the US committed by "the US right."

      Delete
    4. Well, if he didn't have to, he chose to of his own free will. Apparently he saw some advantage in doing so.

      Delete
  3. Because those NRA members are just running around beheading people left and right, tying them to crosses, and engaging in widespread open rebellion...


    As for your title, Laci, were you trying to smear all Muslims as evil or point out that the dangerous people are small minorities that are not representative of each group you cited?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh--one more thing. Would it be rude to point out that McVeigh, in addition to being the only American in the bunch, is also the only one whose killings didn't require a gun? And waddya' know--he's the one who racked up the highest body count (by far).

    Could it be that guns aren't as ideal for mass killings as some would have us believe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Timothy does hold the record, but to make a fair analysis, we should take the top 100 incidents of mass murder. Would guns still be lacking in that picture?

      Delete
    2. I hadn't realized that 100 was the magic number for being "fair" in the analysis.

      So in the interest of "fairness," how do you propose we define "mass murder"? Does the gassing of Jews and other "undesirables" in Dachau, Auschwitz, etc. count?

      Delete
    3. Well, it would be a lot fairer than your taking the one single record-breaker.

      I wouldn't go back so far. How about the 100 worst mass killings in the US going back 20 years.

      Do you think a gun would be the preferred tool of those mass killers?

      Delete
    4. Oh--we're sticking to the U.S. now? Is Laci OK with the new rules?

      Delete
  5. "The US right is as much of a terrorist threat as are Muslims"

    Laci, its sort of sloppy of you to bring up the threat of right wing extremists in the US, and then use as examples foreign extremists and their misdeeds in their respective home countries. There is also a danger in fitting people into neat little philosophical boxes as you seem to often do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Maybe Laci wanted to include those others because of the immensity of their crimes."

    "Timothy does hold the record, but to make a fair analysis, we should take the top 100 incidents of mass murder. "

    Mike, I don't believe that it was Laci's intent to focus on gun violence in this post, but rather the recent events involving acts of violence seemingly justified through Islamic beliefs.
    Many people are voicing concern about the sheer magnitude and scope of this violence based on large groups of people based on their interpretation of their selected scriptures.
    So Laci was IMHO trying to illustrate acts of terrorism conducted by the whitest people possible. Of course, while the Port Arthur shooting, while a horrible event, isn't really terrorism because there seems to be no goal based on religious, political, or ideological beliefs.
    After all, if we are to believe the administration, the mass shooting at Fort Hood is merely an act of workplace violence. So we now have two examples of what could reasonably defined as terrorism and one of them took place outside the country.
    And of course, when it comes to the scale of violence, none of the people mentioned here can hold a candle to the violence perpetrated by various governments.

    ReplyDelete