Thursday, December 10, 2015

Another Threeper coming out of the closet? Famous pragmatist Say Uncle comes around to my position on 4th Generation Warfare.

Courtesy of Herschel Smith we have this link to the radicalization of firearm rights pragmatist Say Uncle, referring to Amitai Etzioni's call for civil war:
"Bring it."
I don’t think progressives understand how that will play out. Those sitting on the sidelines cheering on the disarmament effort are as much fair game as those doing the disarming.
I left a comment welcoming Uncle to the Three Percent concept of 4th Generation Warfare as applied to a future American civil war.


Sean said...

You forgot to mention that old bottom line, Mike. If you try to take our guns, we'll kill you.

Anonymous said...

This guy Entzioni (Werner Falk) is a real piece of shit. Just a rudimentary search of this collectivist ( while looking for a good picture of him for future reference) will betray just the kind of apologist for statism that he is. He's been through all the right schools, won all the right awards, and cheered on by all the right people. So he didn't come here to enjoy the freedoms the Founders of this country imagined for all individuals. He came to destroy them on behalf of the people contributing grant money, such as The Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Endowment. He may have his 19 year old college kids fooled, but when you've seen enough of his type you know exactly who and what he is...And that picture of him wasn't searched by me to frame either...

Anonymous said...

Well, your catechism suggests that killing innocents is verboten.
But your words blur the distinction of innocent, extending to 'those on the sidelines'. How convenient for you. And for the government belligerents as well.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:14: when you use a bully pulpit and Alinsky methods to set the deadly machinery of the state to do your dirty work, you are no innocent. There is a difference between having foolish ideals and pushing the leviathan to enforce them. Is it that hard for you to grasp the difference? It was the Clintons who set the Kosovo rules of engagement. Your worship of the state as the supreme god of the land makes you a dangerous foe.

Otto Didact said...

Anon @ 9:14 AM,
There is no "blurring" such as that to which you refer. The ones referred to in the article as "Those sitting on the sidelines cheering on the disarmament effort" being "as much fair game as those doing the disarming." does not refer to families of those doing the dirty work of disarmament. What, I believe, the author is referring to are government officials (elected, appointed and/or civil service), media pundits and community leaders calling for such activity. Entzioni and anyone publicly advocating such a policy is just as guilty of any shed blood as any government stooge/thug doing the rounding up of guns. As are commanding officers of the Law Enfrcement units doing the disarming. I would not go so far as to target the families of the ones doing the disarmament but I would consider those people legitimate targets along with any member of the support elements that make it possible for the field work to get done.

I remember a conversation I once had with an admin troop many years ago. He was boasting of how if we went to war he would have no blood on his hands since all he did was shuffle paper. I advised the "titless waf" (that's what we called admin pukes back in the day) that the person who cut the orders sending the trigger puller to the front, or arranged the transportation or the supply weenie who ordered the ammunition was fully as "guilty" of any death resulting from their actions as the trigger pullers. The pointy end of the spear is very small. The rest of the organization waging the war bears equal blame - AS WOULD any media pundits ginning up support for the disarmament and keeping that support going. Look up Hildabeast's old man's rules of engagement when he sent our troops into the former Yugoslavia.

Anonymous said...

> But your words blur the distinction of innocent, extending to 'those on the sidelines'.

More like you attempt to blur what is meant by "on the sidelines". When someone on the sideline sends a proxy to kill you, they are not "innocent".

Just sayin.

Chiu ChunLing said...

The shape of the war we will fight for our freedom is, perhaps, not clear to all concerned. When the necessity of using lethal force in the direct defense of our lives against the criminals who come armed to our doors becomes a widespread reality, the entire modern economy will screech to a halt. Wherever the violence starts, it will very soon effectively interdict all normal transportation of goods, most significantly of food from rural to urban areas.

Who, being armed and prepared for their self-defense in a tenable location, will bother going in to the bloody chaos of food-riots and looting where most of the middle-tier of useful idiots will be trapped, waiting for their supplies to run out or their hired guards to turn on them?

If these weasels do somehow manage to escape the hell-holes of their own making and come knocking on our doors for succor, we shall of course be too wise to take them in, and too well-armed for them to rob by violence. But do we really need to threaten to go after them?

Unfortunately, it appears that we do, because they are too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions otherwise. But I still see no real necessity in it. I won't bother with any of them that face their end in the urban messes they create, and those who try to escape that fate will of course bring themselves to where patriots rule.

Anonymous said...

Lack of perfection is not itself evidence of failure.
In war, especially as a matter of defense, it is simply true that some innocents will die. The difference is whether innocents are the targets or whether everything possible, short of simply not fighting back, is done to avoid loss of innocent life.

Step off punk, with this idea that war can be fought absent innocent deaths. Fact is, the enemies that the good guys fight always eventually present human shields trying to save their own skins.

Conflation is something weak minded, intellectually dishonest people present. This because it is all they have to present. They only thing "blurred" is your own vision.