jump to navigation

Czech Gov’t to Citizens on How to Fight Islamist Terrorists – Shoot Them Yourselves January 13, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Ecumenism, family, firearms, General Catholic, Immigration, Restoration, Society, the enemy.

That’s a novel approach, especially for Europe:

A couple of months ago, Czech President Milos Zeman made an unusual request: He urged citizens to arm themselves against a possible “super-Holocaust” carried out by Muslim terrorists.

Never mind that there are fewer than 4,000 Muslims in this country of 10 million people [that’s supposed to be a bad thing?!?  Good for the Czechs from keeping the invading hordes of military-age males out of their country]gun purchases spiked. One shop owner in East Bohemia, a region in the northern center of the Czech Republic, told a local paper that people were scared of a “wave of Islamists.”

Now the country’s interior ministry is pushing a constitutional change that would let citizens use guns against terrorists. Proponents say this could save lives if an attack occurs and police are delayed or unable to make their way to the scene. To become law, Parliament must approve the proposal; they’ll vote in the coming months.

The Czech Republic already has some of the most lenient gun policies in Europe. It’s home to about 800,000 registered firearms and 300,000 people with gun licenses. Obtaining a weapon is relatively easy: Residents must be 21, pass a gun knowledge check and have no criminal record. By law, Czechs can use their weapons to protect their property or when in danger, although they need to prove they faced a real threat.

This puts the country at odds with much of Europe, which has long supported much more stringent gun-control measures.  In the wake of the 2015 terror attacks in Paris, France pushed the European Union to enact even tougher policies. The European Commission’s initial proposal called for a complete ban on the sale of weapons like Kalashnikovs or AR-15s that are intended primarily for military use. Ammunition magazines would be limited to 20 rounds or less.

That bill subsequently passed in slightly modified form over the Czech government’s opposition, meaning that this vote is more than a bit of kabuki theater – the EU’s laws will supersede whatever laws the Czech government puts in place.  it also means a great many weapons currently legal in Czech and some other nations will soon be illegal.  If I were the Czechs, I’d be working towards a Czexit right now.

Most of Europe has long been much less free with basic human rights – like the right to self defense – than this nation has been.  While Europeans will giggle and say that’s why Europe has a lot fewer firearms deaths than the US, I would retort that the US also hasn’t ever had a concentration camp nor an endless cycle of totalitarian regimes.  The Czechs used to live under one of those.  That has more than a little to do with Czechs’ desire to own firearms, which is something I’ve seen personally (though I think the number of firearms and firearms owners listed above severely under-represents reality).



1. The Lord's Blog - January 14, 2017

Reblogged this on Jean'sBistro2010's Blog and commented:
Interesting possibility.

2. pro-life - January 14, 2017

“US also hasn’t ever had a concentration camp nor an endless cycle of totalitarian regimes” — No. But we do have abortion and abortifacient contraception. Which brings us back to the old question about using force against abortion whether for destruction of property or harming abortion personnel to intimidate them or take them out of business. Our laws are okay with deadly force in self-defense, but defense of the unborn isn’t self-defense. If deadly force would be tolerated in our society in defense of the Jews, or blacks, or any other “aggrieved” group, it would probably be acceptable under proper circumstances. In defense of the unborn… ? — If it were in defense of a man’s own child — would that be acceptable ?

c matt - January 15, 2017

While we have not had concentration camps, we have had internment camps based upon racial/ethnic heritage (see WW II).

As for the self-defense of the unborn, it does raise some issues. However, if you look at it from a just war perspective (which is about as analogous as I can think of) it would be difficult to meet the “expectation of success” and “won’t unleash harms as bad as” components (not to mention the “properly constituted authority”), If pro-lifers did go postal on abortionists/abortion providers, it would invite civil war and anarchy (or military occupation). Likelihood of such tactics successfully eradicating abortion are pretty slim, and who knows what counter-measure evils it would unleash. Sometimes I think the powers that be are purposefully baiting pro-lifers to precisely take those actions (e.g., “if you really thought abortion is murder, you’d be blowing up abortion clinics”) so they can then clamp down, hard.

In the rare (if ever) situation where someone is forcing a woman to get an abortion, and at her request, you “take out” the abortionist as they are forcibly performing their gruesome procedure, I think you could make out a self-defense argument that would pass, or at least get a hung jury in a rural bible belt county.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: