10 August 2011

More to the Point on the London Riots

I know I have veered "off-topic" for the blog, but I post this last item on the London riots in furtherance of the combox discussion there.  It is from Lew Rockwell's blog, but the writer cites the Catholic resistance in the Vendee during the French Revolution, and I am a sucker for that sort of thing:

'Concealed Carry' Will End the British Riots Overnight

Lew, a few years after Virginia adopted its "shall issue" concealed carry law, I remember a long story in the Washington Post wondering why crime rates had risen in recent years much more in Maryland, which had no such law, than in Virginia. Well, duh!

There are all sorts of reasons why a criminal standing on the 495 bridge over the Potomac would choose to go north to Maryland instead of south to Virginia. For one, police are trained not to shoot (although they often break their own rules); gun owners are more direct and are more likely to responsibly defend themselves by any and all means necessary. That would be true for the UK as well.

I wonder how brazen those British thugs would be if they knew shop owners might have a loaded Sturm-Ruger Mini-14 under every counter. One report I saw tonight showed a block of shops totally destroyed and looted, save one: the bookstore. Clearly intelligent persuasion will not avail with the plunderers. Bullets might fare better. They are cowards, after all.

I couldn't help guffaw when NBC news presented its London "correspondent" whose analysis relied on Dickens's "A Tale Of Two Cities" — it's just another sad tale, he whined, of the oppressed  poor against the filthy rich. Did he bother to watch his own network, with footage depicting drunks looting a wine shop? Did he forget that Ernest Defarge owned a wine shop, and it was his wife whose knitting recorded the killings she applauded at "la Machine" — the Guillotine? Did he get it a little backwards, perhaps?

Meanwhile, it was the poor Catholic peasants in the Vendee who marched with their pitchforks to defend their homes against the advancing revolutionary forces, who killed them by the tens of thousands. And the Revolutionary Directorate was full of rich, ideological intellectuals who hated the Monarchy and the Church. Toujour la haine! Vive la Guillotine!

As usual, NBC's ignoramuses turn history upside down to push the statist party line. Will the UK buy into it and cave, and forgive the poor little dears? Or will they hand out concealed carry permits to every small businessman in England, and end the British riots in a New York minute?


Anonymous said...

So, let me get this straight. The British govt. is supposed to allow SOME British citizens to carry concealed guns - if they're store owners or rich, but NOT allow anyone who might someday strike to carry one??????

So, not only will you end up with a country where one group owns most all the wealth, assets, votes AND guns, and a larger group of the population that is poorer, non-property owning, little voice in government, AND without guns?

Actually, this sounds pretty much like the Tea Party movement - shed a tear for the rich and give them everything you can think of, while further depriving the poor of anything.

Oh, and for the record, the French Revolution was about the poor and disenfranchised being angry at the extreme wealth and their disdain for the poor. Unfortunately, the church and the monarchy were similarly hated for these reasons.

Thankfully, a number of Saints stepped forward to help guide the church back to working with the poor instead of tending to the rich. (Be careful what you wish for. Arming the rich and not the poor is exactly the same sort of thing that caused the French revolution in the first place.)

JBQ said...

Nice socialist comment. Those that work have their resources taken from them. When the Russians took over eastern Poland in 1940, they evicted the middle class and gave their homes and goods to the poor. In addition, the leadership class was interred in three camps and at night 200 to 300 were taken out and enumerated in records and then shot in the head and their bodies taken to the Katyn Forest. Thus was the state in Poland until JPII.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 17:19. Please, spare us the clownsmanship.

I think that the following article was written with you in mind:


Anonymous said...

... and actually 17:19, if you choose not to absorb that entire article, the crux of the matter is summarized in the following paragraph from it:

"... no matter how poor people are, no matter how lacking in advantage, they are still moral agents capable of making choices between right and wrong, between forging ahead with their lives or lashing out against their neighbourhoods. The claim that their poverty makes them violent is more outrageous than the right-wing law'n'order lobby's claim that they are just "thugs" - at least the law lobby recognises the rioters' capacity to make moral decisions; the leftish lobby just depicts them as the inevitably messed-up end-products of Bad Experiences."


Bsdouglass said...

Luke 22:36-38 which is a reference to Luke 9:3-5 might be of interest.

Also, you know this section of the Catechism:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

St. Gabriel Possenti ora pro nobis.

On a local note, some folks might be interested in looking into the history of the Washington Blues and the parish of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist which they built with funds raised by their militia related activities before the war.