« ***THE ARMED CITIZEN*** An Every Friday Feature | Main | »

December 21, 2012


A "tool"?

Is that what government is to you?

That sounds like you prefer a government of men and not of laws.

I thought you have been extremely critical of our President for arbitrarily using government in this exact fashion.

To a King, the government is a tool.

You oppose genocide, ethnic cleansing, and slavery, and yet you endorse those exact acts by using government as a "tool" when it comes to foreign policy.

Father forgive him for he does not know what he is saying or doing.

[Marc's Reply: Firearms are the tools I was referring to, not government.]

If you show me a case of genocide or ethnic cleansing I bet I could show you a former colony or a region labeled a state using arbitrary borders imposed by the mandates of the victors of war.

War begets War.
Death begets Death.
And interventionism is the mother of both on the global level.

A strong defense requires the courage to step out when required.

Reality dictates that the fingerprints of the west will be on all things global, but a boot on the neck and a gun to the head are neither fingerprints nor are they productive.

God Bless.

I am not sure I agree that a democratic society is an inalienable right.

And I know I disagree about recruiting government to achieve my christian missionary goals.

And I never allow my faith to influence how I feel about government. Government must be rational in order to be relevant. By definition, faith has no part in reason. If my faith can be explained by reason, then ergo ... it is not faith.

I think you are wrapping your warmongering in a flag robe topped with a cross.

I consider that being a demagogue.

God Bless.

[Marc's Reply: My life is an inalienable right and I have every right to defend it, with whatever tool is necessary to defeat the threat against me. That's not religion nor is it a statement regarding democracy.]

Do those rights extend to all human beings across the globe?

Because if they do, how can you justify your views on Foreign Policy?

Interventionism is force and when individuals and nations claim the right of self defense, the typical response from those on your side is that "the forceful response to force is an act of war".

An aggressive response to force is self defense. The initial aggressive act (the use of force either by economic or military means) is the true "act of war".

The response is a "God Given Right".

For example;

A guy runs into a theater with an assault rifle and starts firing off rounds. Someone pulls out their concealed firearm and blows the guy away.

Who committed an act of aggression and who exercised self defense?

A nation has been exploiting a region since the end of WW2 for its resources by the use of economic and military force. Factions within that region fight back using terrorism.

Who committed an act of war and who is exercising self defense?

I will admit that the line is a bit more blurred in the ladder, but the only reason why that is the case, is because of the nature of interventionism. Interventionism strings out the cause and effect over decades as opposed to seconds.

If one chooses to be sanctimonious, then one must also be sincere if they do not wish to be looked at as a hypocrite or as being irrational.

God Bless.

[Marc's reply: You overstate my position on use of military force. My filter is this - we do have the right to defend ourselves by pre-emptive action when faced with a clear and present danger to our national security or national interest. I don't have to wait for the guy with the gun to shoot at me. If I see him point a gun in my direction and vow to shoot me that's all I need. Same with military force.

Now, as it relates to initiating military action absent a clear and present danger to the USA, I limit my belief as to when we may properly force to prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing etc. We are not content Christians, we are activist missionaries. Liberty and democracy are not the spoils of our wars, they are basic human rights and we cannot sit idly by and watch people be slaughtered or enslaved and be consistent with our fundamental core belief that these rights belong to all human beings. Otherwise we say "well, we are entitled to these rights, but in so far as other countries are concerned......not so much."

Thanks for the comment.]

"Weapon of war" - where did this come from? Think it is a mistaken use of language in this debate... Handguns are standard issue are they not? So, why start saying, trying to sound all reasonable, that it is just these "weapons of war" that we need to rethink, the government needs to get a handle on... The left is NOT reasonable.

[Marc's Reply: Thanks for the comment. I've edited the post. I failed to see how my intention might have been misread. I appreciate the insight.]

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photo For Facebook

  • Kentucky's #1 Conservative Blog
     photo blogfacebooklogo_zpsd77979be.jpg



Tip Jar

My Twitter Updates

  • What's New?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad