Via B5, we have a sad and moving story. The Funeral of SPC Tommy Byrd should be read, if you feel you can stand to read it.
Good Life
The Good Life:
Daniel's apparently too shy to post a link to it here, so I'd like to direct you to his "Good Life" list. It all sounds pretty good to me, too.
WWII Vets
Hollywood Went to War:
Via the Major's Lady, a compilation of Hollywood fighting men. Probably you knew some of these stories, but there may be one or two that will surprise you.
Rednecks
We Desire Harmony From You Rednecks:
Not just some of them, all of them. The political right and the political left are in perfect agreement on the question. We wouldn't think of condemning the Muslim community just because it produces terrorists at a rate absolutely unseen in any other group of humanity; no sir. Harmony is what is needed there. But we can just go right ahead and paint all poor, rowdy "rednecks" with the same broad brush.
Growing up in the red hills of Georgia, I met plenty of the type. They'll punch a man out for insulting Mama, but they'll charge into a burning building to save a child -- I knew many who did, with the Volunteer Fire Department. Or who did the same thing just to try to save a little of some other people's property, because they knew all too well what it was like to scramble hard all their lives for not so very much. For that matter, is it such a bad thing to have a culture in which people think it's a fighting offense to insult Mama?
You want harmony from them? Don't insult Mama, God, or country -- I expect that goes in Australia same as it does for America. They won't insult your God if you don't insult theirs -- but allowing your community to produce terrorists is going to be considered an insult to the country. If you want harmony with the rednecks, I suggest you do what you have to do to make sure that stops.
If you don't, I see no reason to think that demanding "Government protection" is going to solve your problems.
President of the Australian federation of Islamic Councils, Dr. Ameer Ali, had this to say in response to the arrest of 17 Muslims on terrorism charges in Australia:
I want the Government to assure my community that they will not allow the rednecks in this country to exploit the situation to cause disharmony in society.Well, aside from being shocked to realize that "redneck" is the same insult in Australia (and New Zealand) that it is in America, I'm not terribly surprised by this. After all, if there's one thing that society seems to be united on, it's that rednecks are bad.
Not just some of them, all of them. The political right and the political left are in perfect agreement on the question. We wouldn't think of condemning the Muslim community just because it produces terrorists at a rate absolutely unseen in any other group of humanity; no sir. Harmony is what is needed there. But we can just go right ahead and paint all poor, rowdy "rednecks" with the same broad brush.
Growing up in the red hills of Georgia, I met plenty of the type. They'll punch a man out for insulting Mama, but they'll charge into a burning building to save a child -- I knew many who did, with the Volunteer Fire Department. Or who did the same thing just to try to save a little of some other people's property, because they knew all too well what it was like to scramble hard all their lives for not so very much. For that matter, is it such a bad thing to have a culture in which people think it's a fighting offense to insult Mama?
You want harmony from them? Don't insult Mama, God, or country -- I expect that goes in Australia same as it does for America. They won't insult your God if you don't insult theirs -- but allowing your community to produce terrorists is going to be considered an insult to the country. If you want harmony with the rednecks, I suggest you do what you have to do to make sure that stops.
If you don't, I see no reason to think that demanding "Government protection" is going to solve your problems.
Evolution
Evolution:
Another sign of how much this blog has evolved since its initial days in 2003 is offered by the occasion of National Ammo Day 2005. This event is in its third year, even as Grim's Hall is.
Here are my rough thoughts, per year:
2003: "What a great idea! But, a hundred rounds? How will I afford it?"
2004: "I'm glad to support this idea. But, a hundred rounds? Where will I put it?"
2005: "Great idea. But, just a hundred rounds? I use that much every two weeks."
On the upside, my handgunnery has gotten a lot better. My "fliers" are still in the 8-ring, these days, even when I shoot one hand unsupported rapid-fire. That doesn't put me in "Gun Guy" or Doc's class, but it's a solid improvement over where I was a year ago.
Lang Poli
Language Policy & Other Business Items:
I generally let people say whatever they want as long as it conforms to the comments policy. I myself don't generally curse -- although if you read through the 2003 archives, you'll see that wasn't always the case. I blame Sovay, with whom I've been fortunate enough to spend a fair amount of time since 2004. Her influence has driven me to pursue virtue even in spite of myself, for which I am more grateful than I might have expected to be.
The comments policy at Grim's Hall is intended to keep the peace of the hall, not restrict the terms of debate. I'd like to make clear that you can say what you want here, so long as it adheres to the terms of the policy, which I adopted from the sadly-defunct Texas Mercury:
1) I'd like to take Eric's advice, and consider inviting some more co-bloggers to take up residence. Grim's Hall is a meadhall for warriors, so bloggers here ought to have an honest fighter's spirit. Beyond that, I'm open. Any regular reader may email me with suggestions. Just click on my name.
2) The trackback situation is sucking air. Haloscan reports more than half the time now that trackback pings are 'too far away' or 'don't appear to be valid.' Trackback is an important tool, though, and I hate to lose it. I'm thinking of swapping off to Movable Type or Expression Engine. Anyone with advice on that, feel free to email.
The other day in the comments, Cassandra said:
If I ever blog for you, you are likely to be stuck with me you poor miserable... bas... oh. I can't swear here, can I? :) That's the biggest reason I haven't done so, so far.I assume she means that the biggest reason is that she doesn't want to make me regret asking her on, rather than that she can't swear. I did stop to think about the question, though.
I generally let people say whatever they want as long as it conforms to the comments policy. I myself don't generally curse -- although if you read through the 2003 archives, you'll see that wasn't always the case. I blame Sovay, with whom I've been fortunate enough to spend a fair amount of time since 2004. Her influence has driven me to pursue virtue even in spite of myself, for which I am more grateful than I might have expected to be.
The comments policy at Grim's Hall is intended to keep the peace of the hall, not restrict the terms of debate. I'd like to make clear that you can say what you want here, so long as it adheres to the terms of the policy, which I adopted from the sadly-defunct Texas Mercury:
If you're looking for more guidance than that, I'll offer you the advice that Hank Williams Jr. gave to country music singers. I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb for gentlemen, Southern or otherwise:As we see it, modern society has all the important ideas of life exactly backwards: we are completely against the belief in sensitivity and tolerance in politics and raffish disregard in private life. The Texas Mercury is founded on the opposite principles- our idea is of tolerance and polite sensitivity in private life and ruthless truth in politics. Be nice to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas.That stands, but I would like to clarify: hit & run attacks, whether they are on ideas or people, will be deleted. If you're a regular, you can say anything you want and expect to be treated kindly, personally, even if we beat your ideas to death.
No no, in country music you just dont use the f word;Two more pieces of business:
We've come along way but it's best if that ones not heard.
Oh, we had some hells and damns,
But we'd never say "B***h!", we say "Why, yes ma'am."
1) I'd like to take Eric's advice, and consider inviting some more co-bloggers to take up residence. Grim's Hall is a meadhall for warriors, so bloggers here ought to have an honest fighter's spirit. Beyond that, I'm open. Any regular reader may email me with suggestions. Just click on my name.
2) The trackback situation is sucking air. Haloscan reports more than half the time now that trackback pings are 'too far away' or 'don't appear to be valid.' Trackback is an important tool, though, and I hate to lose it. I'm thinking of swapping off to Movable Type or Expression Engine. Anyone with advice on that, feel free to email.
Honorable men again?
Jason van Steenwyk over at Countercolumn has just noticed that apparently the The Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), announced plans to eliminate annual congressional hearings for Veterans Service Organizations.
Like Jason, I have to wonder, If they dont' have the time for this, what are they spending their time doing?
I am so glad I'm an Indpendent. Because if I was a Republican, I would be so embarrassed at this I wouldn't have the words to express it.
Jason van Steenwyk over at Countercolumn has just noticed that apparently the The Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), announced plans to eliminate annual congressional hearings for Veterans Service Organizations.
Like Jason, I have to wonder, If they dont' have the time for this, what are they spending their time doing?
I am so glad I'm an Indpendent. Because if I was a Republican, I would be so embarrassed at this I wouldn't have the words to express it.
More on Veterans day.
The folks at Situational Awareness, have posted some 11 stories for Veteran's day. These are all collected from JED, the Journal of Electronic Defense.
11. Paul Goddard: Royal Air Force
10. Mike Gilroy: USAF
9. Patrick Cordingley: British Army
8. Allan Lamb: USAF
7. Pierre-Alain Antoine: French Air Force
6. Yitzhak Zoran: Israeli Navy
5. John Geragotelis: USN
4. Scott Vogt: USMC
3. Michal Fiszer: Polish Air Force
2. Michael Svejgaard: Danish Air Force
1. Roger Ihle: USAF
The folks at Situational Awareness, have posted some 11 stories for Veteran's day. These are all collected from JED, the Journal of Electronic Defense.
11. Paul Goddard: Royal Air Force
10. Mike Gilroy: USAF
9. Patrick Cordingley: British Army
8. Allan Lamb: USAF
7. Pierre-Alain Antoine: French Air Force
6. Yitzhak Zoran: Israeli Navy
5. John Geragotelis: USN
4. Scott Vogt: USMC
3. Michal Fiszer: Polish Air Force
2. Michael Svejgaard: Danish Air Force
1. Roger Ihle: USAF
Vet's Day
Happy Veteran's Day:
Thanks to all who have served, whether volunteer or by the draft. America today is as strong as she is in large part because of you; America tomorrow will be stronger for those who follow in your footsteps.
I salute you all.
Happy Birthday
Happy Birthday:
This post will stay at the top all day. I'll update it as more links appear.
The Commandant's official greetings. "Marines create stability in an unstable world."
The Secretary of the Navy sends his greetings.
Col. Jeff Bearor writes on the birthday.
Mackubin Thomas Owens offers a history lesson.
Doc Russia posts his tribute.
And here are the links to Grim's Hall's previous celebrations, from 2003, and 2004 (although apparently my graphic from last year has died).
Drinks at Tun's Tavern.
UPDATE: Here is Joel's post at Southern Appeal, which I missed at first because (in his eagerness) he posted it on the 9th of November. I assume we'll be seeing a movie review of The Sands of Iwo Jima from Joel later today.
Outside the Beltway has this roundup, although they are apparently under the impression that the Corps was founded in 1875.
BlackFive has a few words from Tun's Tavern.
Daniel's birthday wishes are up.
Froggy wishes a happy birthday to the Teufelhunden.
LIFE IS HARD. IF YOU’RE STUPID IT’S HARDER
LIFE IS HARD. IF YOU’RE STUPID IT’S HARDER.
The above quote represents my favorite line from the movie The Sands of Iwo Jima. Those eight words, spoken by the character of Sgt Stryker as played by John Wayne, not only describe an inescapable truth about life they also accurately portray the no-non-sense, all business, blunt attitude of the ideal Marine NCO. That tuff attitude is what makes Marine Sergeants the backbone of the Marine Corps.
In the Spirit of full disclosure I must confess that The Sands of Iwo Jima has been one of my favorite movies since I first watched it as a little boy with my dad and my appreciation of the film has only increased over time. It is the classic 1940-50 American war movie. It is the story of a group of vastly different individuals that come together and learn to work as a team in order to accomplish a greater goal. Along the way they have to overcome obstacles both internal and external. They have to resolve personal conflicts both within themselves and with other members of the unit. All of this makes for a more dramatically fulfilling war movie than just about anything Hollywood has produced lately.
The story is narrated by PFC Peter Conway, played by John Agar. As the story progresses you learn that PFC Conway is the son of a senior Marine officer killed in combat. Furthermore, you find out that Conway and his father had a stormy relationship. This creates tension between him and Sgt Stryker who served with the elder Conway and thought he was one of the finest officers he had ever known. PFC Conway’s pretentious, no-it-all college attitude does not help matters.
Additional tension within the unit comes from the character of PFC Al Thomas, played by Forrest Tucker. PFC Thomas served with Sgt Stryker before in China. Sgt Stryker turned in him for an undisclosed infraction and kept him from getting promoted. Furthermore, Thomas lost the Marine Corps heavy-weight division boxing title match to Sgt Stryker. It is clear from the beginning that these two men do not like each other.
All of these tensions look as though they are going to come to head and end tragically. It doesn’t help that Sgt Stryker himself is struggling with a serious drinking problem and remorse over a failed marriage. However, through training and the crucible of combat the men overcome these problems and come together as a unit. They don’t initially understand Sgt Stryker’s uncompromising standards and demanding attitude until they realize that is exactly what was needed to teach them how to survive on the battlefield.
All of the above was often standard fare for war movies of that period. However, there are other things that make this movie more complex and superior to similar films. For instance, there is a persistent redemption theme throughout the movie. PFC Conway learns to get over his resentment of his father. Sgt Stryker stops wallowing in self pity and alcohol abuse. PFC Thomas, whose negligence in combat leads to the death and wounding of fellow Marines in the unit, overcomes his guilt and grief to ultimately become a strong Marine leader. All of this leaves the audience with a real uplifting feeling and demonstrates dramatically that while all of us fail it is the winners among us who don’t let those past failures prevent them from getting back up and trying again until they ultimately succeed.
I wish they still made movies like this.
The above quote represents my favorite line from the movie The Sands of Iwo Jima. Those eight words, spoken by the character of Sgt Stryker as played by John Wayne, not only describe an inescapable truth about life they also accurately portray the no-non-sense, all business, blunt attitude of the ideal Marine NCO. That tuff attitude is what makes Marine Sergeants the backbone of the Marine Corps.
In the Spirit of full disclosure I must confess that The Sands of Iwo Jima has been one of my favorite movies since I first watched it as a little boy with my dad and my appreciation of the film has only increased over time. It is the classic 1940-50 American war movie. It is the story of a group of vastly different individuals that come together and learn to work as a team in order to accomplish a greater goal. Along the way they have to overcome obstacles both internal and external. They have to resolve personal conflicts both within themselves and with other members of the unit. All of this makes for a more dramatically fulfilling war movie than just about anything Hollywood has produced lately.
The story is narrated by PFC Peter Conway, played by John Agar. As the story progresses you learn that PFC Conway is the son of a senior Marine officer killed in combat. Furthermore, you find out that Conway and his father had a stormy relationship. This creates tension between him and Sgt Stryker who served with the elder Conway and thought he was one of the finest officers he had ever known. PFC Conway’s pretentious, no-it-all college attitude does not help matters.
Additional tension within the unit comes from the character of PFC Al Thomas, played by Forrest Tucker. PFC Thomas served with Sgt Stryker before in China. Sgt Stryker turned in him for an undisclosed infraction and kept him from getting promoted. Furthermore, Thomas lost the Marine Corps heavy-weight division boxing title match to Sgt Stryker. It is clear from the beginning that these two men do not like each other.
All of these tensions look as though they are going to come to head and end tragically. It doesn’t help that Sgt Stryker himself is struggling with a serious drinking problem and remorse over a failed marriage. However, through training and the crucible of combat the men overcome these problems and come together as a unit. They don’t initially understand Sgt Stryker’s uncompromising standards and demanding attitude until they realize that is exactly what was needed to teach them how to survive on the battlefield.
All of the above was often standard fare for war movies of that period. However, there are other things that make this movie more complex and superior to similar films. For instance, there is a persistent redemption theme throughout the movie. PFC Conway learns to get over his resentment of his father. Sgt Stryker stops wallowing in self pity and alcohol abuse. PFC Thomas, whose negligence in combat leads to the death and wounding of fellow Marines in the unit, overcomes his guilt and grief to ultimately become a strong Marine leader. All of this leaves the audience with a real uplifting feeling and demonstrates dramatically that while all of us fail it is the winners among us who don’t let those past failures prevent them from getting back up and trying again until they ultimately succeed.
I wish they still made movies like this.
Doc
Doc II:
Now, I know more than six of you read this blog. Take a moment and go vote for Bloodletting in the Clubs "deck of death" poll. The poll closes today. Consider it a USMC birthday gift for one of the blogosphere's proudest Marines.
Super Squad
THE ALL TIME, HALL OF FAME, ALL-AMERICAN, SUPER SQUAD.
In the Latest edition of the Marine Corps Gazette Col Jack Mathews, USMC (Ret) discuses which figures from American military history he believes would constitute the ideal “super squad.” The background for Col Mathews article is a picture commissioned by the Command and Staff College Class of 2005 depicting these different historical figures in the boat with General Washington during his crossing of the Delaware River.
The Squad is as follows:
Squad Leader
BG Daniel Morgan
1st Fire Team
Col John Stark
LTC George Rogers Clark
Col Edward Hand
Col John Glover
2nd Fire Team
MG Andrew Jackson
LTG Ulysses S. Grant
MG William Tecumseh Sherman
LTG Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson
3rd Fire Team
Col Joshua Chamberlain
ADM William “Bull” Halsey, Jr.
LtGen Lewis B. Puller
GEN George S. Patton
I think Col Mathews’ Super Squad represents an intriguing idea. One regularly hears theories about which collection of all-time great players would be on history’s greatest football or baseball team. Consequently, I think it is a good idea to spend a little time theorizing about whom from our military history would be in history’s greatest squad or platoon. Personally, I think Col Mathews’ squad has a few too many Yankees and not enough Marines. Additionally, I would have Made Andrew Jackson the squad leader.
In the Latest edition of the Marine Corps Gazette Col Jack Mathews, USMC (Ret) discuses which figures from American military history he believes would constitute the ideal “super squad.” The background for Col Mathews article is a picture commissioned by the Command and Staff College Class of 2005 depicting these different historical figures in the boat with General Washington during his crossing of the Delaware River.
The Squad is as follows:
Squad Leader
BG Daniel Morgan
1st Fire Team
Col John Stark
LTC George Rogers Clark
Col Edward Hand
Col John Glover
2nd Fire Team
MG Andrew Jackson
LTG Ulysses S. Grant
MG William Tecumseh Sherman
LTG Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson
3rd Fire Team
Col Joshua Chamberlain
ADM William “Bull” Halsey, Jr.
LtGen Lewis B. Puller
GEN George S. Patton
I think Col Mathews’ Super Squad represents an intriguing idea. One regularly hears theories about which collection of all-time great players would be on history’s greatest football or baseball team. Consequently, I think it is a good idea to spend a little time theorizing about whom from our military history would be in history’s greatest squad or platoon. Personally, I think Col Mathews’ squad has a few too many Yankees and not enough Marines. Additionally, I would have Made Andrew Jackson the squad leader.
From Cassie
Cassandra Sends:
In re: "Hey, Don't Laugh," below, our friend Cassandra sends an email:
Subject: President Bush may call up Marines to Aid France
FYI-- this press release just issued
President Bush has authorized the Joint Chiefs to begin drawing up a
battle plan to pull France's ass out of the fire again. Facing an
apparent overwhelming force of up to 400 pissed off teenagers, the President
doubts France's ability to hold off the little pissants. "Hell, if the last
two world wars are any indication, I would expect France to surrender
any day now", said Bush.
Joint Chiefs head, Gen. Peter Pace, warned the President that it might
be necessary to send up to 5 Marines to get things under control. The
general admitted that 5 Marines may be overkill but he wanted to get
this thing under control within 24 hours of arriving on scene. He stated he
was having a hard time finding even one male Marine to help those ingrates
out for a third time but thought that he could persuade a few female Marines
to do the job before they went on maternity leave.
President Bush advised Gen. Pace to get our Marines out of there as soon
as possible after order was restored. He also reminded Gen. Pace to make
sure the Marines did not take soap, razors, or deodorant with them.
The less they stand out the better....
HitchSudan
Hitchens on Sudan:
Amid new calls for a new realism, this ought to be sufficient rebuke. What is needed is not more realism, but more idealism; not more negotiation, but a readier hand on the sword. We cannot solve the world's problems, but we can disrupt janjaweed militias easily enough. Bombs are good enough for buying time, so that rebel forces can form to resist the genocide, so that the military of corrupt third-world states cannot aid their proxies. We can ship arms to the oppressed. At least we can make a fight out of it, even if we can't win it for them.
But this which we can do, we have not done. Instead, we allow the UN to continue to ban arms shipments to the oppressed within war zones; and our reliance on their negotiations and 'peace processes' cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Are we strong enough to forgive ourselves, as Hitches says we are?
If we're quoting the great writers of the age, here is Hitchens on Darfur:
Any critique of realism has to begin with a sober assessment of the horrors of peace. Everybody now wishes, or at least says they wish, that we had not made ourselves complicit spectators in Rwanda. But what if it had been decided to take action? Only one member state of the U.N. Security Council would have had the capacity to act with speed to deploy pre-emptive force (and that would have been very necessary, given the weight of the French state, and the French veto, on the side of the genocidaires). It is a certainty that at some stage, American troops would have had to open fire on the "Hutu Power" mobs and militias, actually killing people and very probably getting killed in return. Body bags would have been involved. It is not an absolute certainty that all detained members of those militias would have been treated with unfailing tenderness. It is probable that some of the military contractors would have overcharged, and that some locals would have engaged in profiteering and even in tribal politics. It is impossible that any child of any member of the Clinton administration would have been an enlisted soldier. But we never had to suffer any of these wrenching experiences, so that we can continue to wish, in some parallel Utopian universe, that we had done something instead of nothing.Well? The Left will say that it is Bush's fault, for being too busy in Iraq to stop the genocide. But how did they do at the same test? No better.
Or not exactly nothing. The United States ended up supporting the French military intervention in Rwanda, which was mounted in an attempt not to remove the genocidaires but to save them. Nonintervention does not mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens. Our policy in Darfur has not just failed to rescue a stricken black African population: It has actually assisted the Sudanese Islamists in completing their policy of racist murder. Thank heaven that we are tough enough to bear the shame of this, and strong enough to forgive ourselves.
Amid new calls for a new realism, this ought to be sufficient rebuke. What is needed is not more realism, but more idealism; not more negotiation, but a readier hand on the sword. We cannot solve the world's problems, but we can disrupt janjaweed militias easily enough. Bombs are good enough for buying time, so that rebel forces can form to resist the genocide, so that the military of corrupt third-world states cannot aid their proxies. We can ship arms to the oppressed. At least we can make a fight out of it, even if we can't win it for them.
But this which we can do, we have not done. Instead, we allow the UN to continue to ban arms shipments to the oppressed within war zones; and our reliance on their negotiations and 'peace processes' cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Are we strong enough to forgive ourselves, as Hitches says we are?
Steyn
Steyn on the Riots:
His piece is here. The most chilling part of it is right at the end:
As to where Britain falls in this grim scenario, I noticed a few months ago that Telegraph readers had started closing their gloomier missives to me with the words, "Fortunately I won't live to see it" - a sign-off now so routine in my mailbag I assumed it was the British version of "Have a nice day".Mark thinks you will.
Movie club
Grim's Hall Movie Club:
I know we're all busy, and most of us have quite a few expenses that keep us from pursuing certain hobbies. However, I've been thinking a bit lately about doing a "movie club" of sorts.
The general rules would be these:
1) Movies would be classics of film, available on VHS/DVD at most local stores. They ought to be either readily available at rental places, or for sale for less than $15 -- most readers, I think, could afford to spend $15 a month or so on a movie if they wished. It's the same as tickets for two at a new movie, but you'd be seeing something that has already proven itself over time.
2) We'd watch one or two movies a month, depending on how it works out.
3) Either I, or one of my co-bloggers if they sponsored it, would post a review of the movie to start discussion. We'd carry it on in the comments.
4) I'd like to aim at movies that capture classic American values, the kind of films that we'd like our children to grow up watching. To start with, I'd like to sponsor the John Wayne classic The Alamo.
Any interest in this among the readers?
Up the French Militia
Hey, Don't Laugh:
However, if worst comes to worst, and you should find yourself in a situation where you've got a government like France or Maryland denying you your basic human rights, and on top of that barbarians torching your cities and cars, you can do worse than a flashlight and pepper spray. In fact, what really matters most is just the willingness to fight and die for what you believe -- the weapon you bring to bear is not unimportant, but it is far more important in a contest of professionals. With amateurs, the main thing is fighting spirit. A band of men determined to hold the line will hold it.
In the old days they used to say, "One Riot, One Ranger." It's not that different now. Give me five or ten men who will hold the line, and I expect you won't readily find the gangbangers or rioting band of punks to stand up to them. If that small band of men has rifles instead of flashlights, they can hold off anything short of an army.
The main thing is just to stand up. The main thing is to make up your mind, now, that the enemy won't burn your home or bring violence into your neighborhood. If you're committed to the fight, only the most professional of warriors will stand against you. Believe, and hold the line.
Iraq the Model is taking the opportunity of the Paris riots to roll around on the floor in laughter:
I read this report about the Paris riots:The laughing is all in good fun, since down Iraq way my understanding is that the US military decided to permit each family to retain a Kalashnikov and a pistol for personal defense. Good on them! Having the tools is a big part of doing your duty as a citizen to maintain the common peace, and uphold the constitutional order.Faced with widespread lawlessness, some people in France have started defending their property. In Seine-Saint-Denis, a suburb of Paris rocked by several nights of unrest, a community group has started patrolling local properties armed with…Here I was expecting shotguns, rifles or pistols to complete the sentence but then thought No, this is Europe and there must be laws against carrying firearms in public so I thought baseball bats would be the weapon of choice but again No I told myself; this is France they’re talking about and they don’t play baseball in France, so what did the community group carry to defend their property? "pepper spray and heavy flashlights" was the answer!! I don’t know how you see this but to me it feels like telling the rioters ‘come here and bring that piece of pizza, I have a pepper spray in my hand’ or ‘come and pose for a photo, I brought this excellent flashlight with me!’
However, if worst comes to worst, and you should find yourself in a situation where you've got a government like France or Maryland denying you your basic human rights, and on top of that barbarians torching your cities and cars, you can do worse than a flashlight and pepper spray. In fact, what really matters most is just the willingness to fight and die for what you believe -- the weapon you bring to bear is not unimportant, but it is far more important in a contest of professionals. With amateurs, the main thing is fighting spirit. A band of men determined to hold the line will hold it.
In the old days they used to say, "One Riot, One Ranger." It's not that different now. Give me five or ten men who will hold the line, and I expect you won't readily find the gangbangers or rioting band of punks to stand up to them. If that small band of men has rifles instead of flashlights, they can hold off anything short of an army.
The main thing is just to stand up. The main thing is to make up your mind, now, that the enemy won't burn your home or bring violence into your neighborhood. If you're committed to the fight, only the most professional of warriors will stand against you. Believe, and hold the line.
billR
Roggio on NRO:
Bill Roggio's in National Review Online today, talking about a joint MilBlogger-Senate conference. Don't miss it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)