I met a pacifist last Sunday sitting next to me at the counter of Papa’s ‘50s Diner in Sierra Vista, Arizona. I hadn’t seen him since the 17 year old waitress he worshipped left for other horizons about a year ago. I said hello and complimented him on his new, full beard. He began regaling me with how women he’s “gone with” demanded he keep the beard. It was a good, full beard. It was a manly beard. It looked fake on him.
I don’t know why but after duly impressing me with the women (allegedly) in his life he brought up the subject of carrying guns. Dave opined confidently (and loudly enough for the gals to hear) “In MY experience, 75% of people who carry guns wouldn’t know what to do with it if they ever needed to use it.” That’s a bold statement from a wimp who’s probably never touched a gun. It’s also a very bad bet in the poker game of life – especially in the great State of Arizona.
I ignored Dave’s comment as a feeble effort to appear manly to the gals behind the counter. I ignored him – with much greater effort- when he said “Personally I felt going to war myself would not have made a difference in the outcome”. If everyone felt that way the whole world would be enslaved by tyrants. Does this make those who did go to war fools? I didn’t ask the idiot sitting next to me cuz I was afraid I’d punch him in his pacifistic face.
I asked what he would do if some guy pointed a gun at his head and said he was going to kill him. Dave made the most idiotic statement I’ve ever heard (next to “God is dead”). “I wouldn’t do anything because if it’s my time to go then it’s my time to go.” I said, “Well there’s Social Darwinism at its’ finest!”
In a feeble effort to recover his testicles, Dave said “However, if a member of my (nonexistent) family were at risk I would defend them.” I turned squarely to Dave and asked “Wait. You won’t defend yourself if an asshole is going to shoot you because ‘it’s your time” but you will defend a member of your (fictitious) family? What if it’s not their time? What if it’s the asshole deciding it’s your and their ‘time’? I returned to my breakfast muttering it was the most bedazzling piece of pacifistic bullshit I ever heard. (see John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government re: right to self-defense)
This incredulously false logic rages nationally with the Left ascribing human will to an inanimate object. Freud said fear of guns indicates sexual impotence. Looking at the anti-gun crowd I tend to agree. For example:
1. The Liberal educators of our nation are responsible for this head-in-the-sand response by teaching students to cower in fear when an armed intruder is roaming their halls. General George S. Patton once told his troops the best way to counter being shelled by artillery is to charge through the impact zone. The same principle applies in an ambush – charge through the kill zone. You exponentially increase your chances of survival by getting out of the kill zone as quickly as possible. Instead of locking children in the classroom and cowering in a huddle (massing targets together for an easy kill) why not allow them to escape out the windows? Or create chaos by everyone running away confusing the shooter and making it more difficult to sight in on a stationary target? As a former teacher and police office I’m in favor of arming qualified teachers – in fact, every law abiding citizen (“An armed society is a polite society”). At a minimum it will reduce assaults on teachers by students.
- School administrators are responsible for this lost art of self-defense by suspending both the bully assailant and the victim in a school fight. Kids that kick bullies asses are heroes – not co-violators.
- Liberal parents are responsible for this lost art of self-defense by capitulating their role as parents to socialist-indoctrinating public educators, allowing computers in their children’s bedrooms, believing “it’s more important to be their friend than their parent, and such psycho-babel as ‘They are going to drink/smoke dope anyway so they might as well do it at home”. That’s bullshit psychology. How about maintaining a standard of no booze or drugs in the home – period! How about sustained and sufficiently serious consequences for misbehavior rather than being afraid “my children might hate me!” All teenagers hate their parents regardless! If you don’t teach them to fear you for breaking home rules they won’t fear the consequences of violating societal rules. And those are exponentially more serious.
- Social workers and the ACLU are to blame for “reforming” mental health treatment that allows mentally ill persons to sign themselves out of treatment centers – creating real life “Living Dead”.
- Hollywood producers (and consumers) are responsible for the violence -saturated TV and music programming that brainwashes kids whose prefrontal cortex (which controls high-risk impulses) doesn’t fully develop until they’re 21 years old. I know a young, single, medicated mom who lets her 3-year old daughter watch the The Walking Dead with her before bedtime –and wonders why that beautiful little girl is terrified to go to bed.
A late ‘70s LA Times article cites a psychologist “70% of Americans are taking some type of psychotropic medication.” It’s undoubtedly more than that now – especially in California!
“No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom [or their lives] by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” – Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Remember that when you are cowering in fear begging a maniac not to kill you.
I think the key indicator is your use of the word “wanted”. Children – particularly teenagers- don’t automatically “give” respect to their parents for several reasons: “Teenager” is the very definition of rebellion against authority. They demand freedom with no concept of the consequences of their choices – due to immaturity, lack of experience and a prefontal cortex that is not fully developed until their early 20s.
Respect has to be EARNED. That entails conflict. That only comes from tough love, saying NO, and enforcing high standards.
Fearful parents unwilling to impose tough love on their children out of divorce guilt, no moral code / liberal philosophy are ruing their children. Imposing discipline without fear of consequences is like having societal laws (crimes) with no punishment trusting everyone to obey the law “because it’s the right thing to do.”
It was a tough battle with my four kids. But they grew into self supporting, successful citizens who appreciate (even brag about) Dad’s Law. We’re closer than their enabling “more important to be their friend” mother – my ex.
P.S. The “kinder, gentler” Dr. Spock approach to child rearing was discredited in the ’80s. Dr. Spock, during one of his lucid, LSD-free moments, recanted his advice not to spank children. One of the most exhaustive studies on child raising concluded that children of “tough love” parents overwhelmingly grew up to be independent, mature and successful adults capable of decision making that resulted in happy and secure lives.
Parenting children so they become successful, happy adults has only become more difficult in the face of public educators who hire school councilors that tell students to inform on their parents for disciplining them (a la the Soviet Union) and the media who glorifies disrespect and immorality. Ergo parents produce snowflakes who take refuge with their computers in their bedrooms, can’t deal with reality and flip out when confronted with it.