poll: are the primitives honestly hoping violence breaks out?

[franksolich]

This is a serious question, not a tongue-in-cheek or "fun" query.

Are the primitives honestly and sincerely and covertly hoping that violence breaks out after the elections?

I suspect they do; I suspect they're salivating at the prospect of watching neighborhoods burn, massive civil disorders, and wanton injury and fatalities inflicted upon the innocent who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I suspect the primitives are all agog and excited about the prospect; they can hardly wait.

Not that any primitive would bother going out on the streets--that's way too much work--but damn, they want so badly for it to happen, thinking it'll bring down the Great Satan America.

I'm not a part of the legal or law-enforcement systems, and so perhaps don't fully understand the true consequence of such a thing, but I hope to God there's plenty of blue-city mayors who issue the order, "shoot to kill" when the trouble-makers start their rampages.

Some might protest, "What--you're valuing property over human lives?"

No.

I'm valuing a right--the right of people to live in a stable society without fear--over the right to life of a few malcontents who don't contribute anything to the stability of this society anyway.  Our system, the best system in the world, the best system in all of history, offers plenty of rational options for resolving disputes and disagreements without resorting to violence and lawlessness and destruction.

[Skul]

Absolutely. Primitives seem to revel in the thought of violence.
See Owsies.
Their misguided self-importance dictates that revolution must take place to advance their socialist goals.

[BlueStateSaint]

I was going to say, "Not sure," but then I read what Skul and you wrote, Coach.  The two of you convinced me otherwise.

[dane]

I think you are right, that the primitives do want violence.  But the DUprimitives especially want the violence to be by others, while they themselves 'blog' about it from the safety of their parents' basements.

The ones on DU would not participate, with the high post count members urging support while the not-so-high posters would make multiple K&R responses, beat their breasts, and exclaim what a good thing it (the violence) is.

[BlueStateSaint]

I think you are right, that the primitives do want violence.  But the DUprimitives especially want the violence to be by others, while they themselves 'blog' about it from the safety of their parents' basements.

The ones on DU would not participate, with the high post count members urging support while the not-so-high posters would make multiple K&R responses, beat their breasts, and exclaim what a good thing it (the violence) is.

Target!  H5.  They want others to do the heavy lifting for them, then come in and claim the spoils.

The problem with that is . . . the ones that did the 'heavy lifting' usually have the guns and the combat experience to not lose their power.  That's in a society without an armed citizenry.  If the citizens are armed, say, similar to the USA, . . .

[franksolich]

I was going to say, "Not sure," but then I read what Skul and you wrote, Coach.  The two of you convinced me otherwise.

This really concerns me, even though I'd be far away from the action; there's not enough people in the Sandhills to riot, and besides, violence isn't our style.  It's a blue city and blue state thing, riots.

I'll bet the one person who can do something about it--cool down the tempers--isn't going to do a damned thing about it, even though he'd still be president until January 20, 2013.  He's just going to let it happen, and if asked, blame it on Bush.

Remember back in 2008, after the elections, when a lot of liberal pundidiots and commentators suggested Barack Milhous be installed in office right away, as the election was already over and decided, and it was time for Bush to go, instead of waiting clear until January 20, 2009?

Now I'm too thinking we really need to shorten the time between the election and inauguration; a retiring president can do a lot of damage those last three months in office. 

We really can't have the British system of immediate turnover, but the Electoral College meets in mid-December to vote, and I think that'd be a good time for a new president to take over.  A retiring president, especially one notoriously vindictive like this one, can still do a lot of damage in a single month, but not as much as in three months.

[whiffleball]

Absolutely, they are.  Where I feel their secret lies is in hoping Obie doesn't win so they can feel empowered to let their inner violence spew forth.   These are people who are happiest when wallowing in their own bile; an Obie victory would quell that.

I wouldn't care one whit what they destroy, but the innocent gets caught up in their stupidity and taxpayers have to foot the bill for damages.

[Big Dog]

Target!  H5.  They want others to do the heavy lifting for them, then come in and claim the spoils.

The problem with that is . . . the ones that did the 'heavy lifting' usually have the guns and the combat experience to not lose their power.  That's in a society without an armed citizenry.  If the citizens are armed, say, similar to the USA, . . .

 

[Zathras]

You better believe they want violence if they don't win but they won't have the balls to do it themselves since every DUmmy is a gutless coward.

[USA4ME]

It would further validate their belief of conservatives being in favor of a police state and being racist, so yes.

.

[hillneck]

It would be the OWS idiots repackaged.

[Tucker]

Yes.

But not involving them. They will be sideline observers and reporters.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yes.

But not involving them. They will be sideline observers and reporters.

Almost exactly what I was thinking.  They want violence to punish America for not re-electing Obama, but they don't want it to affect themselves personally.

And I don't actually have a problem with valuing property over human life, myself.  Rioters and looters have taken themselves completely outside workaday societal norms by their own choice, I don't see a lot of purpose to protecting them from the consequences of their own voluntary actions. 

[Splashdown]

Yes.

But not involving them. They will be sideline observers and reporters.

And also send pictures of their hands, etc.

[franksolich]

And I don't actually have a problem with valuing property over human life, myself.  Rioters and looters have taken themselves completely outside workaday societal norms by their own choice, I don't see a lot of purpose to protecting them from the consequences of their own voluntary actions. 

I was wondering if "shoot to kill" might seem a tad bit harsh, although I'm in favor of it during times of civil disorder.

This society offers plenty of peaceful means to reconcile differences, and so there's no excuse to riot and pillage.

The overall right of such a society (a society that offers other options) to live in peace and stability supersedes the right to life of those wishing to wreak harm on that society.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I was wondering if "shoot to kill" might seem a tad bit harsh, although I'm in favor of it during times of civil disorder.

This society offers plenty of peaceful means to reconcile differences, and so there's no excuse to riot and pillage.

The overall right of such a society (a society that offers other options) to live in peace and stability supersedes the right to life of those wishing to wreak harm on that society.

In real terms, when faced with a mob of rioters and looters, anyone defending his ground is already faced with the threat of deadly force, since he'd likely be beaten to death or nearly so for having the temerity to resist, so the issue quickly becomes self-defense rather than valuing property over life.  Entrance wounds in the back don't look good when the police eventually creep back in from wherever they were hiding and start throwing their weight around, though.

[BlueStateSaint]

I was wondering if "shoot to kill" might seem a tad bit harsh, although I'm in favor of it during times of civil disorder.

This society offers plenty of peaceful means to reconcile differences, and so there's no excuse to riot and pillage.

The overall right of such a society (a society that offers other options) to live in peace and stability supersedes the right to life of those wishing to wreak harm on that society.

Coach, it's never "shoot to kill."  It's shoot to stop (the action).  If the perp dies in the process, it's all good.

[jukin]

Not YES but HELL YES!!!

The DUches would love to see violence from the safety of their basement.

The thing with mobs is that the first few shots will disperse the mob. I refer you to the Koreans that protected their stores and shops with rifles and shotguns during the Rodney King riots in LA. Not a sigle rioter came their direction once they knew the Koreans would shot at them.

[thundley4]

When Romney wins the DUmmies will be advocating violence in the hope of overthrowing the government and installing Obama as Duh Fuhrer.

[BlueStateSaint]

Not YES but HELL YES!!!

The DUches would love to see violence from the safety of their basement.

The thing with mobs is that the first few shots will disperse the mob. I refer you to the Koreans that protected their stores and shops with rifles and shotguns during the Rodney King riots in LA. Not a sigle rioter came their direction once they knew the Koreans would shot at them.

IIRC, a lot of those rifles were of the SKS variety.  Nothing like a 7.62x39mm round to change your perspective, though a .30-06 or a .308 or a .30 WCF does the job just as nicely.  Hell, even a .22 LR would do the trick.

[Randy]

I was wondering if "shoot to kill" might seem a tad bit harsh, although I'm in favor of it during times of civil disorder.

This society offers plenty of peaceful means to reconcile differences, and so there's no excuse to riot and pillage.

The overall right of such a society (a society that offers other options) to live in peace and stability supersedes the right to life of those wishing to wreak harm on that society.

Swift and overwhelming violence works every time to quell uppityness.


And no it's not.

[franksolich]

Coach, it's never "shoot to kill."  It's shoot to stop (the action).  If the perp dies in the process, it's all good.

I would just as soon the aim be to "kill," not to merely "stop."

There is no reason, no reason at all, for anyone to run around pillaging and burning.

[BlueStateSaint]

I would just as soon the aim be to "kill," not to merely "stop."

There is no reason, no reason at all, for anyone to run around pillaging and burning.

When one shoots to stop (the antisocial action), one typically aims for the center of mass.  That's usually a fatal wound.

I'm sure that DAT can vouch for this--as a young cavalryman, we were told to "shoot until the target burns (or bleeds)."  No one-shot stuff for me, unless it's a "zombie kill" (headshot).  I'm sure that if a riot were to take place, and suddenly some of the miscreants' heads exploded from bullets going through them, the rest of the assholes would suddenly find other things to do--such as, running for their lives.

[dandi]

Yep, as long as they're not involved.

One or two might, might, toss a bottle or brick from the anonymity of a crowd and then scurry away, but it's doubtful.

Otherwise, they'll be "doing their part" by blogging about it from the safety of their basements.

[miskie]

If violence can result in a lockdown which keeps Obama in play longer than he should be, then absolutely.