priell3
Full Access Member
By David C. Stolinsky. December 12, 2016
Recently in Malibu, a suburb of Los Angeles, 10 alpacas were killed by a mountain lion, and two more were injured. Accounts vary, but either one alpaca was partially eaten, or none were. The predator jumped an electrified fence that the owner had installed. The owner obtained a temporary license to kill the mountain lion and contacted a hunter.
However, the Los Angeles Times and other “progressive” media raised such an uproar that the hunt was cancelled, and the mountain lion remains safe. The alpacas, in contrast, remain dead. What can we learn from this sad event?
• The mountain lion evoked much more sympathy than the alpacas. It is difficult to determine whether the alpacas evoked any sympathy at all.
• The alpacas’ owner evoked strong condemnation for her plan to kill the predator before he killed more domestic animals, or perhaps attacked a human.
• Commenters noted that the mountain lion is a native species, while the alpacas were imported from South America. No doubt these same people would be quick to claim that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have all the rights of native-born citizens. The contradiction escapes them.
• Commenters claimed that the mountain lion was only following his instincts. No, his instincts tell him to kill only what he can eat. If predators killed all the prey they could, they would soon destroy their food supply and starve to death. Those who claim to revere Darwin should take him seriously.
This is not an isolated incident. It is but one of many examples of excessive concern for predators - both animal and human - and deficient concern for their victims. It is but one of many examples of an inverted moral compass that points south instead of north. It is but one of many examples of this principle:
Those who are kind to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the kind.
- Talmud
For the alpaca ranch, substitute the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco. For the alpacas, substitute peace-loving citizens like Kathryn Michelle Steinle. For the mountain lion, substitute five-time deportee and multiple drug offender Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. Despite the fact that Immigration had put a hold on this man, so that he could be deported yet again, kind-hearted San Francisco officials released him from jail, and he proceeded to murder Kate Steinle.
Kind-hearted San Franciscans tried their best to excuse the crime by claiming that Lopez-Sanchez fired his pistol accidentally - three times. They noted the hardships he had endured by entering the country illegally six times. They pointed out his problem with drugs.
Human life is infinitely more precious than animal life - at least to those of us who still retain a religious outlook. But the comparison to the mountain lion attack is inescapable: Sympathy for the predator, none for the prey. Protection for the predator, none for the prey.
And all the while, these so-called liberals and animal-rights activists feel so self-righteous that they look down in contempt at us, the poor, benighted clods who are so backward that we want to shoot the mountain lion before he causes more depredation, and would have deported the murderer before he could murder - and now want to execute him.
Barack Obama opposed a law that would exempt homeowners from prosecution if they used an unregistered gun to repel a home invasion.
- News report
Brooklyn man arrested after shooting and wounding a man entering his two-year-old son’s bedroom in the middle of the night. The intruder had a long criminal record, but the gun was unregistered.
- News report
Britons who use any force against criminals assaulting them - even pen knives, walking sticks, knitting needles, or toy guns - risk prison sentences.
- News report
Can you see a pattern here? Can you see a reluctance to confront threats of violence? Can you see a refusal to use force to repel these threats, or even to allow others to use force? Can you see a rejection even of purely defensive measures, such as a missile shield for our nation? What could possibly explain such unnatural reactions to danger?
When “progressives” in America and other Western nations inhibit self-defense against criminal attack, they reveal much of their thought process. When they arrest a father for wounding a career criminal who is entering his small child’s bedroom in the dark of night, they tell us much about themselves. When they criminalize the use of pen knives, knitting needles, walking sticks and even toy guns in defense against criminal assault, they tell us all we need to know about their belief system. They are criminalizing self-defense.
Such people may have gray hair and sit in legislatures, or on judges’ benches, or occupy professorial chairs, but intellectually and emotionally they are children. They believe that if they close their eyes, the boogey man can’t see them. They believe that if they pull the blanket over their heads, the monsters won’t attack them. They believe that if they don’t fight back, eventually the schoolyard bully will tire of them and bully someone else - not a very humanitarian attitude.
They believe that if they disarm themselves, eventually fewer weapons will be available to criminals and terrorists. But this belief is only superficial. If they truly believed that weapons make them less safe, they would post signs in front of their houses declaring, “There are no guns in this home.” But no one, not even the staunchest advocate of gun confiscation, ever posts such a sign.
At a subconscious level, “progressives” recognize that if even a minority of homeowners are armed, criminals will be deterred from entering any homes while people are there. And figures bear this out. In America, only about 13 percent of burglaries are “hot” - that is, home invasions. But in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 59 percent of burglaries occur when people are at home. About 30 percent of victims of “hot” burglaries are assaulted, or worse. Of course, if a burglary occurs when no one is home, no one is injured. This is not complex. Disarming homeowners endangers them.
I believe that the reason many liberals detest the idea of self-defense is their stubborn refusal to see the world as it is, but instead to act as though their childish fantasies were real. They never worked in an emergency room and saw the results of man’s inhumanity. They never took ROTC in high school or college. They never were instructed by a master sergeant with combat decorations. They never smelled the pleasant odor of gun oil. They never took responsibility for defense of their loved ones or themselves. They prefer the false safety of their illusions. They consider themselves civilized, but in fact they are merely infantilized.
Many “progressives” remain intellectual and emotional children, despite their receding hairlines and increasing waistlines. Advancing years detracted from their appearance, but added nothing to their wisdom. In their own minds, they remain helpless children. But real children depend on adults to protect them. Who will protect childish adults?
If these people don’t like guns, let them refrain from owning one - but not stop me from owning one. If they don’t approve of missile defenses, let them move to a nation that lacks them - but not stop me from protecting my loved ones and myself from fanatics who are armed with missiles and chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Their right to hold infantile, unrealistic, pacifistic, irrational beliefs stops where my safety begins.
Alpacas are beautiful animals, but they depend on the rancher to protect them from predators. If we forbid the rancher to protect them, what does that make us? Some would say civilized, but the essence of civilization is to protect the weak from predators. If we refuse to protect the weak, we are uncivilized creatures with smart phones. And when muggers take our smart phones, we will merely be uncivilized creatures.
The “progressive” position appears to be that all violence is wrong, but defensive violence is worst of all. This notion is illogical, immoral, and ultimately suicidal.
Why Do
Recently in Malibu, a suburb of Los Angeles, 10 alpacas were killed by a mountain lion, and two more were injured. Accounts vary, but either one alpaca was partially eaten, or none were. The predator jumped an electrified fence that the owner had installed. The owner obtained a temporary license to kill the mountain lion and contacted a hunter.
However, the Los Angeles Times and other “progressive” media raised such an uproar that the hunt was cancelled, and the mountain lion remains safe. The alpacas, in contrast, remain dead. What can we learn from this sad event?
• The mountain lion evoked much more sympathy than the alpacas. It is difficult to determine whether the alpacas evoked any sympathy at all.
• The alpacas’ owner evoked strong condemnation for her plan to kill the predator before he killed more domestic animals, or perhaps attacked a human.
• Commenters noted that the mountain lion is a native species, while the alpacas were imported from South America. No doubt these same people would be quick to claim that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have all the rights of native-born citizens. The contradiction escapes them.
• Commenters claimed that the mountain lion was only following his instincts. No, his instincts tell him to kill only what he can eat. If predators killed all the prey they could, they would soon destroy their food supply and starve to death. Those who claim to revere Darwin should take him seriously.
This is not an isolated incident. It is but one of many examples of excessive concern for predators - both animal and human - and deficient concern for their victims. It is but one of many examples of an inverted moral compass that points south instead of north. It is but one of many examples of this principle:
Those who are kind to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the kind.
- Talmud
For the alpaca ranch, substitute the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco. For the alpacas, substitute peace-loving citizens like Kathryn Michelle Steinle. For the mountain lion, substitute five-time deportee and multiple drug offender Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. Despite the fact that Immigration had put a hold on this man, so that he could be deported yet again, kind-hearted San Francisco officials released him from jail, and he proceeded to murder Kate Steinle.
Kind-hearted San Franciscans tried their best to excuse the crime by claiming that Lopez-Sanchez fired his pistol accidentally - three times. They noted the hardships he had endured by entering the country illegally six times. They pointed out his problem with drugs.
Human life is infinitely more precious than animal life - at least to those of us who still retain a religious outlook. But the comparison to the mountain lion attack is inescapable: Sympathy for the predator, none for the prey. Protection for the predator, none for the prey.
And all the while, these so-called liberals and animal-rights activists feel so self-righteous that they look down in contempt at us, the poor, benighted clods who are so backward that we want to shoot the mountain lion before he causes more depredation, and would have deported the murderer before he could murder - and now want to execute him.
Barack Obama opposed a law that would exempt homeowners from prosecution if they used an unregistered gun to repel a home invasion.
- News report
Brooklyn man arrested after shooting and wounding a man entering his two-year-old son’s bedroom in the middle of the night. The intruder had a long criminal record, but the gun was unregistered.
- News report
Britons who use any force against criminals assaulting them - even pen knives, walking sticks, knitting needles, or toy guns - risk prison sentences.
- News report
Can you see a pattern here? Can you see a reluctance to confront threats of violence? Can you see a refusal to use force to repel these threats, or even to allow others to use force? Can you see a rejection even of purely defensive measures, such as a missile shield for our nation? What could possibly explain such unnatural reactions to danger?
When “progressives” in America and other Western nations inhibit self-defense against criminal attack, they reveal much of their thought process. When they arrest a father for wounding a career criminal who is entering his small child’s bedroom in the dark of night, they tell us much about themselves. When they criminalize the use of pen knives, knitting needles, walking sticks and even toy guns in defense against criminal assault, they tell us all we need to know about their belief system. They are criminalizing self-defense.
Such people may have gray hair and sit in legislatures, or on judges’ benches, or occupy professorial chairs, but intellectually and emotionally they are children. They believe that if they close their eyes, the boogey man can’t see them. They believe that if they pull the blanket over their heads, the monsters won’t attack them. They believe that if they don’t fight back, eventually the schoolyard bully will tire of them and bully someone else - not a very humanitarian attitude.
They believe that if they disarm themselves, eventually fewer weapons will be available to criminals and terrorists. But this belief is only superficial. If they truly believed that weapons make them less safe, they would post signs in front of their houses declaring, “There are no guns in this home.” But no one, not even the staunchest advocate of gun confiscation, ever posts such a sign.
At a subconscious level, “progressives” recognize that if even a minority of homeowners are armed, criminals will be deterred from entering any homes while people are there. And figures bear this out. In America, only about 13 percent of burglaries are “hot” - that is, home invasions. But in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 59 percent of burglaries occur when people are at home. About 30 percent of victims of “hot” burglaries are assaulted, or worse. Of course, if a burglary occurs when no one is home, no one is injured. This is not complex. Disarming homeowners endangers them.
I believe that the reason many liberals detest the idea of self-defense is their stubborn refusal to see the world as it is, but instead to act as though their childish fantasies were real. They never worked in an emergency room and saw the results of man’s inhumanity. They never took ROTC in high school or college. They never were instructed by a master sergeant with combat decorations. They never smelled the pleasant odor of gun oil. They never took responsibility for defense of their loved ones or themselves. They prefer the false safety of their illusions. They consider themselves civilized, but in fact they are merely infantilized.
Many “progressives” remain intellectual and emotional children, despite their receding hairlines and increasing waistlines. Advancing years detracted from their appearance, but added nothing to their wisdom. In their own minds, they remain helpless children. But real children depend on adults to protect them. Who will protect childish adults?
If these people don’t like guns, let them refrain from owning one - but not stop me from owning one. If they don’t approve of missile defenses, let them move to a nation that lacks them - but not stop me from protecting my loved ones and myself from fanatics who are armed with missiles and chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Their right to hold infantile, unrealistic, pacifistic, irrational beliefs stops where my safety begins.
Alpacas are beautiful animals, but they depend on the rancher to protect them from predators. If we forbid the rancher to protect them, what does that make us? Some would say civilized, but the essence of civilization is to protect the weak from predators. If we refuse to protect the weak, we are uncivilized creatures with smart phones. And when muggers take our smart phones, we will merely be uncivilized creatures.
The “progressive” position appears to be that all violence is wrong, but defensive violence is worst of all. This notion is illogical, immoral, and ultimately suicidal.
Why Do
