Will Libya retain its progressive monopoly of violence?
“Moammar Gadhafi’s regime passed out guns to civilian supporters, set up checkpoints and sent armed patrols roving the terrorized capital Saturday to put down a revolt in his main stronghold by residents inspired by the success of rebels elsewhere who hold about half of the North African nation,” AP/The Huffington Post reports.
“Pro-Gaddafi Gangs Terrorize Capital,” the story headline tells us (and yes, I noticed they apparently can’t settle on a consistent internal editorial standard for spelling the man’s name).
It must be a point of view thing, because “terrorists” are what Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam calls “pro-democracy protestors.” The ones his father’s regime opens fire on when unarmed. And the ones Libyan Air Force pilots are strafing from the sky.
As an aside, will anybody else not mind seeing this tyrant-in-waiting opened up on the table like a Kel-Bowl-Pak à la Uday and Qusay Hussein?
That the elder Gaddafi had to open up his arsenals is telling. That means the people—even his supporters—typically don’t have the means to challenge his “monopoly of violence.”
That’s the unchallengeable power imbalance endorsed by leading “gun control” advocates in this country. Besides, they ask, what chance do the people have against a modern military that can deploy troops against them, and that have modern weapons and military aircraft at their disposal?
That point is typically made in tandem with the assertion that civilians should not have access to even semiautomatic firearms, because their only purpose is to kill. And if further punctuation is needed to sway the argument, ridicule positing privately-owned bazookas and nuclear weapons can be added–—and generally is.
Then just call gun owners who believe their right to keep and bear arms is another check and balance against tyranny “extremists” or “hatriots” or—what does Saif call them?— “terrorists.” It’s not like media supportive of that government monopoly of violence, either here or in the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, are going to challenge it.
Speaking of which, what exactly is the difference between a “socialist” and “progressive” again?
After all, they both believe in what they term “human rights” and “social justice” along with that monopoly of violence, meaning they get to decide what’s right and what’s just. Or else. And has their fellow progressive in Tripoli got a contest for them:
The Algaddafi International Prize for Human Rights!
Good grief.
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!
March 6th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
“History” shows that the “revolutions” that are most likely to succeed are those that are: the most radical, the most organized, and the most violent. Before a people embark on a “revolution” they should consider those factors. Constitution loving people who believe in freedom and justice for all men are up against it, since there are those in the shadows, communists, fascists, and liberty denying groups of all stripes who are waiting in the wings to take power with the utmost deception, ruthlessness, and violence. These people know that they want, how to get it, and they have
ABSOLUTELY no constraints on what they are willing to do.
I am not impressed by those who are quick to encourage the Libyans to revolt. I remember those Americans who encouraged the Hungarians to revolt, and stood by as they got a blood bath.
To those Americans who defend and uphold the “U.S.” Constitution,
NO other “loyalty,” NO other “country,” NO other “people,” — Absolutely NONE
March 6th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Will oathkeepers keep their oaths by refusing to serve if Obama decides to send the military to interfere in Libya?