<broken link removed>
Gun owners have vested interest in opposing U.S. Syrian intervention
David CodreaGun Rights Examiner
September 8, 2013
As the administration beats the war drums and works on a plan to share the blame by growing domestic and international support for the initiation of military force against Syria, the focus of those reporting on developments, and thus, those they are reporting it to, has been on everything but the likelihood of retaliation on American soil. Ditto for the governments likely domestic response should that happen.
Noting how two pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon put large swaths of the city under what was effectively martial law, with innocent citizens being rousted from their homes by the equivalent of an occupation army, its not hard to envision a similar reaction an order of magnitude larger.
Obama would have us believe that strikes can be limited, not to decapitate the Syrian regime, but to degrade its capabilities. The corollary to that is, he would have us believe any reaction to that will be limited and contained. The thing is, if you start throwing punches, you dont get to define how the other side will respond. It stops being your call to determine how limited the push-back will be. Especially if the guy starting the fight is picking it with more than one adversary and his true target is no pushover.
So what we see in preliminary responses to all the presidents face-saving noise is Iran threatening to rain down death on Israel and to attack regional U.S. interests. We see anti-Assad factions, who presumably should welcome U.S. intervention, envisioning their fighters invading and burning Washington, D.C. We see evidence of plans for jihadists to exploit the "soft belly" Mexican border and spread out to wherever they wish to strike for maximum effect, including psychological. And we see Russia allying its resources with the regime Obama wants to attack.
We see, aside from Code Pink, whose bizarre behavior keeps respectable people from standing by their side, a reaction from the progressives akin to whistling with their hands in their pockets and looking everywhere but at the inconvenient truth. They dont want the war, but its their guys leading the charge, so instead they resort to the old, familiar standby of changing the subject to George Bush and Iraq. The real reporters/legitimate media are in a quandary, because, useful adoring idiots that they are, they know theyre being badly abused but they still desperately love their man. Even Hollywood, which can never contain its loony leftist zealotry, just cant seem to find its voice. When grouchy old Ed Asner and indignant old Mike Farrell stand down because theyre afraid of being perceived as anti-black (I kid you not), a celebrity revolt attracting bigger stars just aint about to happen.
So what will happen if Obama, along with a wretchedly compromised Republican leadership -- lining up like fools to share in the blame if things blow up -- manages to work up the nerve to order the serious business of killing on his behalf to start?
No one has a crystal ball. No doubt a narcissist in the White House would fantasize about Assad folding like a cheap suit, the Ayatollah raging in primitive impotence, Putin proving to be as gutless as he is occasionally shirtless, and garlands for the conquering hero at home and abroad. But reality has shown that we never can tell what the catalyst will be for (unintended?) consequences, even to the point of plunging the world into war. Who could have foreseen that a relatively obscure Austrian archduke getting offed by a Bosnian Serb nationalist would plunge the great powers into a conflict that would claim over 16 million dead, resulting in a treaty, that made an even larger conflict a few decades later, with 60 million dead, inevitable?
That sounds way like overreaction, right? Hey, its not me talking the potential for first the region and then the Homeland to get nuked, its Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, albeit hes using that as his justification for giving Iranians fanatics awaiting the 12th Imam no choice but to capitulate to a culture they view as satanic.
But that could never happen here, though, right? After all, were 21st Century America. Aside from a few flukes now and then, that happen to other people in other cities and that the rest of us only see on TV, were immune to the forces of history, arent we? Were the land where the livins so easy that the snack-fed masses can afford to have trivial interests and short attention spans, and to focus those on the current freak-tongued celebrity slattern du jour, with just a bit of room left over to accommodate Simon Cowells love child.
But if something does happen, say if those jihadists do manage to make their way across the well-traveled, well-known and curiously still-open cartel drug routes, and if they then fan out to join up with comrades in arms already inexplicably legally admitted into the country (and sustained here courtesy of plunder wrested from the private sector), what then? If their activities interrupt delivery of goods and services -- both market and government-provided -- for any length of time, its not hard to imagine consequential looting, riots and mayhem. Throw longstanding, suddenly unchecked demographic-based resentments and hatred into the mix, and a frenzied plea for government to do whatever it takes will be happily answered. Its not like most will realize where the ginned-up divisiveness and enabling public policies that made destruction, misery and chaos inevitable originated.
And what will those establishing order do then?
Again, no one has a crystal ball. The best we can do is look to large civil disruptions of the recent past and extrapolate what would happen on a larger scale involving cities and locales all over the country. It is safe to assume though, that personally invested government officials who feel their power -- or more -- will have powerful incentives to regain control by any means necessary. Then factor in a properly terrified public largely willing to trade any and all freedoms for the perception of security. After all, many of our countrymen cant even walk across a damn bridge anymore without surrendering the Fourth Amendment, and they do so thoughtlessly, casually, and whats really scary, often gratefully.
Does anyone believe in such a scenario, bearing in mind the heavy hand we saw in Watertown, that a broadly-imposed martial law situation would leave gun owners unmolested? Especially after being painted as domestic terror threats, as the fusion center/police militarization movement has done in its regional law enforcement training? Its no accident that high profile training exercises tar the armed citizenry with a brush that conflates and demonizes them as domestic terrorists, rendering Americans who do not embrace a monopoly of violence as insurrectionist targets to be neutralized?
Funny, how it would be politically incorrect and elicit howls of protest, were such exercises conducted with a culturally different domestic threat in mind. Bearing the potentials in mind, can you imagine how easy the public mood will be to manipulate if some of those jihadist border-crossers reenact Beslan at one of our gun free zone schools? With assault weapons?
Does anyone think that the supposed protections enacted after Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation will hold up once the MRAP APCs roll into town and things take an extra-Constitutional turn, with extraordinary measures enacted under emergency powers and FISA courts headed by judges who reject an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment? Does anyone doubt there will be powerful incentives to treat civil liberties as luxuries for less desperate times?
What is this, gun nut paranoia? Hey, I said I have no crystal ball. But you tell me how many Americans on a Sunday morning in June of 1914 would have scoffed and ridiculed as lunatic anyone suggesting that a shooting in Sarajevo would bring tragedy and disaster to their doorsteps half a world away, along with unprecedented death and destruction to civilized Europe and beyond. And now look at what our leaders are trying to get us into. On behalf of these guys. Whos nuts here?
There are things that not just gun owners, but all Americans can do to pull things back from the brink -- if they want to.
Making sure your representative has signed Rep. Scott Rigells letter urging Obama to consult with Congress as per the War Powers Act is a start, but only a minimal one. Me, Ill settle for nothing less than a case made, with irrefutable evidence proving a direct threat to the Republic that justifies a declaration of war. My litmus test is if I would be willing to risk sacrificing my own life. If the answer is no, I cant morally support risking anyone elses, and Ive yet to hear the case for why I should die for this, or even what constitutes victory if we do start a war.
Meanwhile, not satisfied with the 50 major sites they originally identified for targeting, the White House is now expanding their ambitions -- funny how that works, and how they would have us believe they can just keep adding to the aggression with impunity and mortal enemies will just grin and bear it. With the Saudis urging us to do their dirty work, and with the European Union coming around to a bellicose point of view -- with due deference to United Nations permissions, of course -- its beginning to look more and more like this is something the powers behind the thrones want done, whether the rabble, who will fund and bleed for their expedition like it or not.
Ironically, there is one person who is uniquely positioned to put the brakes on all that, almost effortlessly, and who has multiple political and economic incentives to do so. That man is Vladimir Putin, who warned the G20 summit that hes serious about Syria.
Putin has a chance to show how serous he is, assuming hes not just making self-serving noises, and he knows it. He could assign select Russian foreign services personnel to be embedded as observers with likely targets -- those not under direct threat from rebel forces, naturally -- effectively acting as diplomatic shields. If he does that and refuses to remove them, Obama would be effectively checked from ordering missile launches. It is difficult under those conditions to see the president or anyone but that crazy McCain coot daring to initiate aggression.
But we cant count on that, nor should we. Its not like the guy hasnt been a ruthless KGB operative and iron-fisted autocrat, and its not like the Russkis have any kind of historical human rights record or are proven moral authorities on anything. Besides, as Americans, we need to rely on ourselves. That is, if were truly interested in keeping the U.S. out of Syrias internal conflict and minimizing the potentials for escalation that could precipitate unparalleled disaster, globally and locally. That is, if wed rather not be forced to choose obeying emergency orders or defying them.
Gun owners have vested interest in opposing U.S. Syrian intervention
David CodreaGun Rights Examiner
September 8, 2013
As the administration beats the war drums and works on a plan to share the blame by growing domestic and international support for the initiation of military force against Syria, the focus of those reporting on developments, and thus, those they are reporting it to, has been on everything but the likelihood of retaliation on American soil. Ditto for the governments likely domestic response should that happen.
Noting how two pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon put large swaths of the city under what was effectively martial law, with innocent citizens being rousted from their homes by the equivalent of an occupation army, its not hard to envision a similar reaction an order of magnitude larger.
Obama would have us believe that strikes can be limited, not to decapitate the Syrian regime, but to degrade its capabilities. The corollary to that is, he would have us believe any reaction to that will be limited and contained. The thing is, if you start throwing punches, you dont get to define how the other side will respond. It stops being your call to determine how limited the push-back will be. Especially if the guy starting the fight is picking it with more than one adversary and his true target is no pushover.
So what we see in preliminary responses to all the presidents face-saving noise is Iran threatening to rain down death on Israel and to attack regional U.S. interests. We see anti-Assad factions, who presumably should welcome U.S. intervention, envisioning their fighters invading and burning Washington, D.C. We see evidence of plans for jihadists to exploit the "soft belly" Mexican border and spread out to wherever they wish to strike for maximum effect, including psychological. And we see Russia allying its resources with the regime Obama wants to attack.
We see, aside from Code Pink, whose bizarre behavior keeps respectable people from standing by their side, a reaction from the progressives akin to whistling with their hands in their pockets and looking everywhere but at the inconvenient truth. They dont want the war, but its their guys leading the charge, so instead they resort to the old, familiar standby of changing the subject to George Bush and Iraq. The real reporters/legitimate media are in a quandary, because, useful adoring idiots that they are, they know theyre being badly abused but they still desperately love their man. Even Hollywood, which can never contain its loony leftist zealotry, just cant seem to find its voice. When grouchy old Ed Asner and indignant old Mike Farrell stand down because theyre afraid of being perceived as anti-black (I kid you not), a celebrity revolt attracting bigger stars just aint about to happen.
So what will happen if Obama, along with a wretchedly compromised Republican leadership -- lining up like fools to share in the blame if things blow up -- manages to work up the nerve to order the serious business of killing on his behalf to start?
No one has a crystal ball. No doubt a narcissist in the White House would fantasize about Assad folding like a cheap suit, the Ayatollah raging in primitive impotence, Putin proving to be as gutless as he is occasionally shirtless, and garlands for the conquering hero at home and abroad. But reality has shown that we never can tell what the catalyst will be for (unintended?) consequences, even to the point of plunging the world into war. Who could have foreseen that a relatively obscure Austrian archduke getting offed by a Bosnian Serb nationalist would plunge the great powers into a conflict that would claim over 16 million dead, resulting in a treaty, that made an even larger conflict a few decades later, with 60 million dead, inevitable?
That sounds way like overreaction, right? Hey, its not me talking the potential for first the region and then the Homeland to get nuked, its Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, albeit hes using that as his justification for giving Iranians fanatics awaiting the 12th Imam no choice but to capitulate to a culture they view as satanic.
But that could never happen here, though, right? After all, were 21st Century America. Aside from a few flukes now and then, that happen to other people in other cities and that the rest of us only see on TV, were immune to the forces of history, arent we? Were the land where the livins so easy that the snack-fed masses can afford to have trivial interests and short attention spans, and to focus those on the current freak-tongued celebrity slattern du jour, with just a bit of room left over to accommodate Simon Cowells love child.
But if something does happen, say if those jihadists do manage to make their way across the well-traveled, well-known and curiously still-open cartel drug routes, and if they then fan out to join up with comrades in arms already inexplicably legally admitted into the country (and sustained here courtesy of plunder wrested from the private sector), what then? If their activities interrupt delivery of goods and services -- both market and government-provided -- for any length of time, its not hard to imagine consequential looting, riots and mayhem. Throw longstanding, suddenly unchecked demographic-based resentments and hatred into the mix, and a frenzied plea for government to do whatever it takes will be happily answered. Its not like most will realize where the ginned-up divisiveness and enabling public policies that made destruction, misery and chaos inevitable originated.
And what will those establishing order do then?
Again, no one has a crystal ball. The best we can do is look to large civil disruptions of the recent past and extrapolate what would happen on a larger scale involving cities and locales all over the country. It is safe to assume though, that personally invested government officials who feel their power -- or more -- will have powerful incentives to regain control by any means necessary. Then factor in a properly terrified public largely willing to trade any and all freedoms for the perception of security. After all, many of our countrymen cant even walk across a damn bridge anymore without surrendering the Fourth Amendment, and they do so thoughtlessly, casually, and whats really scary, often gratefully.
Does anyone believe in such a scenario, bearing in mind the heavy hand we saw in Watertown, that a broadly-imposed martial law situation would leave gun owners unmolested? Especially after being painted as domestic terror threats, as the fusion center/police militarization movement has done in its regional law enforcement training? Its no accident that high profile training exercises tar the armed citizenry with a brush that conflates and demonizes them as domestic terrorists, rendering Americans who do not embrace a monopoly of violence as insurrectionist targets to be neutralized?
Funny, how it would be politically incorrect and elicit howls of protest, were such exercises conducted with a culturally different domestic threat in mind. Bearing the potentials in mind, can you imagine how easy the public mood will be to manipulate if some of those jihadist border-crossers reenact Beslan at one of our gun free zone schools? With assault weapons?
Does anyone think that the supposed protections enacted after Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation will hold up once the MRAP APCs roll into town and things take an extra-Constitutional turn, with extraordinary measures enacted under emergency powers and FISA courts headed by judges who reject an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment? Does anyone doubt there will be powerful incentives to treat civil liberties as luxuries for less desperate times?
What is this, gun nut paranoia? Hey, I said I have no crystal ball. But you tell me how many Americans on a Sunday morning in June of 1914 would have scoffed and ridiculed as lunatic anyone suggesting that a shooting in Sarajevo would bring tragedy and disaster to their doorsteps half a world away, along with unprecedented death and destruction to civilized Europe and beyond. And now look at what our leaders are trying to get us into. On behalf of these guys. Whos nuts here?
There are things that not just gun owners, but all Americans can do to pull things back from the brink -- if they want to.
Making sure your representative has signed Rep. Scott Rigells letter urging Obama to consult with Congress as per the War Powers Act is a start, but only a minimal one. Me, Ill settle for nothing less than a case made, with irrefutable evidence proving a direct threat to the Republic that justifies a declaration of war. My litmus test is if I would be willing to risk sacrificing my own life. If the answer is no, I cant morally support risking anyone elses, and Ive yet to hear the case for why I should die for this, or even what constitutes victory if we do start a war.
Meanwhile, not satisfied with the 50 major sites they originally identified for targeting, the White House is now expanding their ambitions -- funny how that works, and how they would have us believe they can just keep adding to the aggression with impunity and mortal enemies will just grin and bear it. With the Saudis urging us to do their dirty work, and with the European Union coming around to a bellicose point of view -- with due deference to United Nations permissions, of course -- its beginning to look more and more like this is something the powers behind the thrones want done, whether the rabble, who will fund and bleed for their expedition like it or not.
Ironically, there is one person who is uniquely positioned to put the brakes on all that, almost effortlessly, and who has multiple political and economic incentives to do so. That man is Vladimir Putin, who warned the G20 summit that hes serious about Syria.
Putin has a chance to show how serous he is, assuming hes not just making self-serving noises, and he knows it. He could assign select Russian foreign services personnel to be embedded as observers with likely targets -- those not under direct threat from rebel forces, naturally -- effectively acting as diplomatic shields. If he does that and refuses to remove them, Obama would be effectively checked from ordering missile launches. It is difficult under those conditions to see the president or anyone but that crazy McCain coot daring to initiate aggression.
But we cant count on that, nor should we. Its not like the guy hasnt been a ruthless KGB operative and iron-fisted autocrat, and its not like the Russkis have any kind of historical human rights record or are proven moral authorities on anything. Besides, as Americans, we need to rely on ourselves. That is, if were truly interested in keeping the U.S. out of Syrias internal conflict and minimizing the potentials for escalation that could precipitate unparalleled disaster, globally and locally. That is, if wed rather not be forced to choose obeying emergency orders or defying them.
