|
|
|
|
|
The whole world is upset because Moslem
fundamentalists in Afghanistan are ordering the
destruction of huge pre-Moslem statues of Buddha.
They are the biggest statues on earth, says the
US, and they are part of history.
The ruling group in Afghanistan says
those statues offend their faith and must be destroyed.
The UN has protested, the US has protested,
and so forth.
Recently, the body of the Kennewick
Man was discovered in the United States. Anthropologists
noted that Kennewick, 1) was older than any American
Indian skeleton, and 2) he bore no relation whatever
to American Indians.
Scientists wanted to study him. Indians
wanted to get rid of him.
You see, the Kennewick Man was a threat
to AMERICA'S established religion, which is Political
Correctness and white racial guilt. If the Indians
were just one more group of invaders taking America
from the people of the Kennewick Man, all the white
racial guilt they get money out of might be threatened.
So the Indians said they had the right
to bury Kennewick Man because of their religion.
The US Government agreed, and buried
Kennewick beyond the reach of anthropology.
If anybody complains about what the
Moslems did with the statues in Afghanistan, we
should mention the superstition that hid the Kennewick
Man from science.
|
|
|
|
According to modern liberal and respectable
conservative theory, all the slaves were actually
free. Slaves had the right to do what they wanted
to, as long as what they wanted did not infringe
their master's rights. Liberals say we should have
freedom only if it does not harm or inconvenience
anybody else.
That sort of freedom is meaningless.
Liberals want hate laws, because they say you should
have freedom to speak as long as no one on the left
is offended. We could be official slaves and have
that many rights.
JOSEPH STALIN'S 1936 Constitution
of the USSR gave Russians "freedom of speech."
It said they could use it if it did not harm the
Soviet State. They also had a death penalty for
saying anything anti-Semitic.
Any meaningful freedom, any freedom
above that of a slave, can be used to harm others.
You must make a BALANCE between real freedom and
the harm a person can do.
Respectable conservatives tacitly
agree with liberals that people should be allowed
to have guns only if guns are harmless. But the
freedom to own and carry weapons for self-defense
should be stipulated, no matter what the statistics
say.
|
|
|
|
It happens, as Yale University Professor
John Lott demonstrates in his book, "More Guns, Less
Crime," that the private ownership of guns does reduce
crime. Once again, even liberals can't argue that liberal
policy -- in this case gun control -- actually WORKS.
When the gun controllers were in a debate with John Lott
on Public Television, they only tried to argue that private
gun ownership did not actually DECREASE crime, not that
it increased it. They still lost.
Police representatives there did point out
this was an odd argument for those who wanted to outlaw
guns to use, but there simply is no practical case for
gun control. About the lowest crime rate on earth is in
Switzerland, where people carry not only guns, but real
automatic assault weapons (May 8, 1999 - ARMED
SWITZERLAND AND THE COLORADO SHOOTINGS).
In Britain, where gun laws are really tight,
forty- three percent of all burglaries are what the British
police call "hot." That means that the criminals
come right in the house when the family is AT HOME and
rob them! See June 2, 2000 article, GUN
CONTROL AND BUSING -- BOTH ARE MEANS TO TEACH CHILDREN
THAT THEIR PARENTS ARE POWERLESS.
Just how safe would you feel if criminals
felt as safe in America as they do in Britain?
Also, the general crime rate in Britain,
once so low, is now higher than the American crime rate.
This is not so in Switzerland.
Guns prevent crime, but that is not the
FIRST reason I am against gun control. I believe that,
if the state cannot guarantee your personal safety in
all areas, you have the right to carry a gun if you choose.
Like all liberal policy, gun control doesn't
WORK. But in any debate with liberals, we should make
it clear that the right to defend oneself is not a matter
of statistics, even though, as always, statistics are
against the liberals.
|
|
|
When President John F. Kennedy was shot
and killed on November 22, 1963, Lyndon Johnson was at
a dead end. He was an older vice president under the young
president. He and Kennedy greatly disliked each other.
Johnson was shut out of White House decision-making.
Also, contrary to all accepted history now,
John Kennedy was enormously unpopular just before he was
killed. If Kennedy had lived, Goldwater stood an excellent
chance against him in 1964. The prejudice against Southerners
in the presidency was at its peak. Johnson was from Texas.
In other words, Johnson's career was blocked.
So when Kennedy was killed and Johnson was
sworn into the office of his lifelong dream, he had to
act as if he were deeply saddened at Kennedy's death.
But I don't think any human could have been entirely unhappy
in his position.
The media were in the same situation when
the school shootings took place at the high school in
Littleton, Colorado. Liberals had to act sad. But they
were also ecstatic. Liberals thought that this, at last,
had cinched their case for outlawing private guns. One
magazine, when presenting a column against gun control,
said, "It should be added that this was written before
the school shootings at Littleton, Colorado."
In other words, the media assumed the Littleton
shootings would end all arguments for private gun ownership.
But they also had to act sad about it, like Lyndon in
1963.
The media thought they had it all, and boy
did they celebrate -- under the guise of covering
the deaths, of course. There is no room in the media to
report black-on-white hate crime or a couple of million
incidents of self-defense with weapons, but boy was there
ever room for Littleton! It seemed that every student
at the school was interviewed, and all the parents of
victims - except the one who was against gun control.
Even the whole funeral of the students was
covered coast-to-coast live.
But the media are used to respectable conservatives,
and they assume everybody on the other side is that weak
and stupid. Just before the 2000 election, they assumed
the American public would not understand it if the president
was elected with a lesser number of POPULAR votes. They
thought it would cause a crisis. Actually, people were
not even all that surprised.
Likewise, the Littleton incident did not
cause the uprising of ignorant peasants that the media
had expected. Gun laws will not prevent that sort of thing,
and everybody knows it. The media's Littleton celebration
was premature.
But a lot of bullied kids did see all the
coverage the Littleton murders got. The less stable of
them learned that, if their meaningless life was to change
and they were to get national coverage, all they had to
do was produce one of those school killings. Recently,
in Santee, California, a bullied student did just that.
|
|
|
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|