Do not go gentle into that Dark Night.*

Upset a Prog’s rock and out slithers a police state.


So, what are we meant to learn from this?
(What? No, I mean besides applying the term “failed state” to any non-Progressivism.)

The thing that really marks it as a failed state is that the state has lost its monopoly on violence”

One would presume, then, that a viable state is one which maintains a monopoly on violence.
I’ll pause, here, to let that sink in. *tick*tick*tick*tick*
Yes, it’s appropriate to bring historical examples to bear.
(You won’t need my help for that, unless you’re a Prog or attended a public school.)

Okay, more from the vid:

And what the movie depicts is that it’s very difficult in a failed state to tell what is just and unjust violence, right? What’s the difference between a terrorist like the Joker, and [Batman], a vigilante? And so you look at America now, and it’s not too much a stretch to say that in those horrific moments in Aurora we approached a failed state. When someone can buy that kind of ammunition and these weapons online… When you have people like George Zimmerman encouraged to vigilantism because we’ve cut all these police forces…you have the shards of a failed state so I think that’s a very profound, a very profound, sort of reflection, a dark reflection, really. Do we want to live in that night? [more]

The moral vacuum, here, is staggering — the moral equivalent of saying, “You didn’t build that.”
Personally, I mourn the failed humanity of this MSNBC joker.

No, I agree with the other Doug:

For those who say, “Doug’s insane with all this concealed weapons crap. We should leave such affairs to the police,” allow me to point out that the theater was crawling with cops for the Batman opening to control the crowds. By the time the police got to the particular theater, it was all over. Blood was already running down the aisles and the gunman had already left the building. You, my friend, are your first responder … your first line of defense. [more]

Monopoly on violence THAT !

* Dylan Thomas-ish

19 Comments!

  1. Melissa In Texas
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 9:37 am |

    The other Doug said it very well.
    For the most part, the police respond only after a crime has been committed, which in so many cases is too late, for someone.
    I would rather be able to defend myself and others as a “first responder” than file a police report after witnessing a crime as I stood by, helpless, or be the violent crime victim, lying in a pool of blood as someone else reports it!

  2. john
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 9:51 am |

    Thought experiment. This joker brings an assault rifle to the IGA in(fill in the blank little mountain town in the Cascades) and starts shooting people. Carrying a rifle. witrh a goddamn joker mask on.

    We are never going to hear about this incident.

    I was going to say maybe the joker shoots the clerk because he has an element of surprise. But I just don’t see him walking in from the parking lot without drawing the kind attention he sincerely doesnt want.

  3. Claire: pink pig barbarian, etc
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 10:17 am |

    Guess they missed this bit, then?

    June 27 [2005] – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

    I would argue that a State has a “monopoly on violence.” Though the only way to actually accomplish that for more than a fleeting second in History is to have a State without actual, yanno, humans in it…

    A Republic has citizens who have the ability to get for themselves all the tools they need to be self-sufficient and independent — and enough left over to lend a hand to the youngest and least able among them.

  4. Lucius Severus Pertinax
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 10:33 am |

    I actually agree that, to be viable, a State must have a monopoly on ORGANIZED violence; elections don’t generally mean much when there are private armies.

    But the distinction here is the “organized” part; one apparently lost on these lib-progs.

  5. Keyser Söze
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 10:35 am |

    This entire debate is about what is, or is not Constitutional. In Madison v. Marbury, the court ruled…

    “that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO.html

    This in itself puts all politicians and government employees on notice, they are responsible for supporting and defending the Constitution…the reason they are required to raise their hand and take an oath to that affect. When these people act in a manner which is repugnant to the Constitution and their oath, they can be declared…”domestic enemies”. With this declaration the people have recourse to remove them from their position of power or employment.

    When Bill Clinton and the Democrats passed the assault weapons ban, they all violated their oath and should have been impeached, because in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled assault weapons were perfectly legal to own by the general public. The case involves a man named Miller, who got caught with a sawed-off shotgun and tried to claim it was his right to possess it under the Militia clause. The court went as far back as 1632 in an effort to determine what weaponry was compatible for use in the Militia and came to this conclusion…

    ” ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

    The operative words here are…”and of the kind in common use at the time”…Miller lost his case because sawed-off shotguns were not of current military issue. Under Bill Clinton however, assault rifles of the time are compatible with military weaponry of today and would therefore fall into the Militia clause category.

    Bill Clinton and all of the Democrats who perjured their oath with enactment of the assault weapons ban, should have been impeached immediately…not over some silly cum spot on a blue dress.

  6. Lucius Severus Pertinax
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 10:41 am |

    Another point:
    Did you notice that little skidmark referring to George Zimmerman as “engaging as vigilante-ism”?

    The man was defending his own life! Apparently, he was supposed to passively allow himself to be killed.

  7. PeggyU
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 10:51 am |

    I object to the term “assault weapon”. Shouldn’t the word “weapon” be sufficient? Can’t any weapon be used for assault or defense?

  8. JoeBandMember®
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm |

    And a police State is exactly what ‘Progressives” or Communists, clamor for. They have fapped over such a society since the days of Lenin.

    They even bring up George Zimmerman, who was indeed HIS first line of defense and attempt to character assassinate him yet again in their warped fapping about the Colorado thing.

    You can call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but i see a lot of psyops flavor in the whole Aurora thing, and in others as well.

    There are reports that he got a phone call just before going out and getting his weapon. There are reports that the shooter “doesn’t remember a thing”.

    And no one, not no one is saying a word about the fact that he was an Occupy member.

    Call me nuts. Go ahead if you feel better. There’s something damn rotten going on that’s far bigger than anything reported in the Democratic Party media.

    November better get here.

  9. SteveHGraham
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 12:43 pm |

    That man is so gay my monitor started to smoke.

  10. Stick
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm |

    Right, because a man who ignores murder laws would certainly obey more restrictive gun laws.

  11. Alan outback bacon czar
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm |

    Being a retired Police Officer, I’m allowed to carry concealed anywhere. I usually don’t carry everywhere, but I think I’ll start.

  12. Alan outback bacon czar
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

    Yes! Gay!

  13. PeggyU
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:52 pm |

    … since Star Trek gay.

  14. rickn8or
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 1:57 pm |

    JoeBandMember®, glad to know I’m not the only paranoid conspiracy theorist here.

  15. tctsunami
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 3:11 pm |

    There are two things I should not do. Post when I’ve had a beer or post when I’m really, really pissed. Well screw that. I’m well into both right now.
    Bad enough I have to listen to little weasles at this useless network but then while checking out “Drudge” I find this.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/angry-crowd-threw-rocks-bottle-at-police-set-fires-on-streets.html

    So, you claim it’s up to the police to take hold your hand and keep you safe. But when they do how do you fricking animals respond. Yea, I though so.
    When the police try to keep you safe you riot.
    When the police are not there you protest.
    When you protest you complain about the police.
    What a bunch of double standard douche’ bags.

    Buy some soap, take a shower and apply for a job ya’ dumb fucks. (hide your hideous tatoos’s as well and remove the nose rings). Course, MSNBC could use some soap as well, or bleech.

    There, I feel better. Thanks for letting me vent everyone.

  16. Melissa In Texas
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 3:14 pm |

    AMEN, tct!

  17. Bohica Junior
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 3:16 pm |

    I disagree with the term “conceal carry crap” used in the passage…when law enforcement is currently unable to be in attendance in a situation that calls for defending yourself, which seems to happen a lot, what are you going to do when a guy like this is carrying a small artillery, and going to gun down the whole room, knowing full well you have a conceal carry license and have the means to prevent this sort of situation…just sit around and let him do it? NO!! your going to shoot the man down, saving your life and the lives of others, and law enforcement can do the rest later.

  18. LLoyd
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 7:58 pm |

    Yeah–the starguy is gay and fits with the ‘diiii-verstity of the talking assholes. “Its a failed state…and when you do you lose on violence….”

    Ah, seems like that ‘s ALL Liberal endeavors and the Great Mayor of Chicago was the first to note this before this movie came: “You leave the childen alone..” You will not find shelter in Chicago….

  19. Posted July 23, 2012 at 10:06 am |

    That berk stumbled into a truth in “Failed State,” but then kept talking.