Skip to comments.The Missing Link To An Armed Citizenry!
Posted on 02/01/2013 10:41:17 AM PST by Ohioan
While the present Administration ignores both Washington's wise counsel & his clear understanding of male psychology, President Obama's Secretary of Defense, denies both the role of Congress, the Chivalric Code & all human experience in a bizarre January order for all branches of the Armed Forces to place women in combat units by 2016. Will further eroding a sense of male responsibility serve any constructive purpose, in dealing with any contemporary problem? Will trashing what have always been constructive male roles--the responsibility of young men to defend their society--contribute anything positive toward dealing with the rash of atrocities committed by mentally deranged, but obviously enraged, young males--whether by firearms or explosives? Are not these tragic instances, in virtually every case, the work of youth with no sense of constructive purpose in their lives? Is there any conceivable deterrence from such acts, in dampening the sense of moral responsibility among those who go to school with them; or live in their neighborhood? In short, is there anything to be gained, either in protecting the innocent from mental cases, or protecting liberty & public order, in the society at large, from obliterating the primeval sense that it is the moral responsibility of young men to protect women & children? Anything?!
(Excerpt) Read more at truthbasedlogic.com ...
A disarmed citizenry is a boon for the criminal element.
Those who promote the banning of guns are taking the side of the criminals while they themselves and their bodyguards will make certain to remain armed.
Here is another instance where lawmakers write laws that are applicable for anyone else but themselves.
It is no accident that the male has traditionally been the defender of the female and offspring, it is a survival mechanism which propagates the species.
Nor is it an accident that those best equipped by nature to feed the very young, those who have nurtured them from their conception have traditionally been the ones to raise the offspring in the traditional roles of nurturing or defending.
To eliminate these roles in our culture is not only unnatural, but leaves only the State to be mother and Father. This is the final assault on the family structure which has carried humans from living in caves to the modern era, not an improvement in either "equality" nor military defense.
The net effect of turning young men into metrosexual wimps and young women into warfighters is that the entire basic structure of human interaction is being damaged.
But what would one expect from those who promote the unnatural behaviours of homosexuals?
While there are and always have been those women who have been warriors, exceptions to the rule, it is the nurturing roles at which women excel.
There is very little real thought or analysis that goes into most legislation, today. On the other hand, there is even less real thought among the talking heads in the media--most of whom are simply parroting what they were told was "important" by some Academic loon, from their under-graduate days.
We are in very deep trouble, if we do not wake our neighbors up.
>There is very little real thought or analysis that goes into most legislation, today.<
You are so right on that point.
Many of today’s lawmakers only have one overriding thought in mind — how can I get re-elected and keep this privileged position.
He/she will do ANYTHING to reach that goal including selling their family and country down the river.
I want an XM25 battle rifle for Christmas.
In other words: Do not overlook the just plain stupidity that goes into much of what you witness.
To eliminate these roles in our culture is not only unnatural, but leaves only the State to be mother and Father. This is the final assault on the family structure which has carried humans from living in caves to the modern era, not an improvement in either “equality” nor military defense.
I am not Santa Claus.
Bump for George Washington’s View.
It is a mistake to believe that rational discussion is always possible, even when dealing with supposedly "well-educated" people.