Tags
credit: sacbee.com
When the terrorist, naked from the waist up—what’s up with that? Did he see too many Tarzan movies as a little Jihadist child?—emerged from the bathroom with a rifle, decades of solemn advice from “the authorities” flaked away like dust under a power washer. The authorities on that French train did a Monty Pythonesque King Arthur: “run away! Run away!” Run they did, locking doors behind them, apparently imagining they were safe, or at least that the Islamist alligator would eat them last.
The only guns on that train belonged to the one person determined to use them for evil. The power and capability of arms, the balance of power, was in the hands of exactly the wrong person, a person who would want his name to be mentioned here, and who had every reason to believe he would be able to massacre innocents unopposed. This is a condition not limited to France or European countries. It is the status quo in much of America.
It can’t be said often enough: guns in the hands of good people can stop bad people before anyone is harmed.
Two men, one French, one French/American, tried to stop him and one was shot (he survived), but his rampage wasn’t ended until three Americans—an airman, a National Guard soldier, and a college student, charged the shooter, disarmed him, and beat him into unconsciousness. Joined by an Englishman, they hogtied him, and though wounded—his left thumb was nearly severed and he suffered several cuts–the American airman provided medical care and saved the life of a wounded passenger.
As George Orwell said:
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
In this age of pajama boys, metrosexuals, and a President who leads from behind, in this age of a President who is a man of action only in wielding a pen and phone, in this age when men are ruthlessly harassed on university campuses, deemed guilty until they prove themselves innocent, denied due process and branded rapists for the crime of being men, in this age when being male, and worse–actually acting like a man–are virtual pathologies, three Americans, a Briton, a Frenchman and a French/American remind us of the virtues of manliness.
When others ran and hid, when most passengers in the train merely cringed and tried to join with the upholstery in their train seats, these men behaved like men, using courage, strength and aggression as good men do, as they have always done: to fight evil and to protect the innocent. They knew they could be seriously injured or killed, but they didn’t hesitate. They attacked and didn’t stop until the threat was neutralized.
On that day, in France, on a train, people arrived, for the most part whole, at their destinations, because rough men stood ready to do violence on their behalf. In so doing, they reveal those that would suppress masculinity not only as fools, but particularly dangerous and destructive fools. The forces of evil spend not a second worrying about such faux-high-minded pacifistic posturing. They act, with violence and brutality. It’s what they are. To imagine that suppressing the ability of good men to respond with greater and more focused violence when necessary is somehow civilized and noble, a means to a progressive utopia, achieves only the deaths of such milquetoasts at the hands of barbarians, and ensures the establishment of a very different utopia indeed.
Islamist barbarians rely on the weakness, the feminization, of those they intend to murder and subjugate. They see the world in black and white: the strong and the weak. They have no doubts, no hesitation, and gleefully take advantage of the weakness of others. Yesterday they struck in France. Tomorrow—one day soon, again–it will be in America.
We need women, for their excellence in being women. We need men—good men, men in control of their rough nature and able to unleash it when required—for their excellence in being men.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Reblogged this on Brittius.
Excellent. And kudos for not making this a brave-Americans-save-the-sniveling-French rant, and giving credit to the Frenchmen and the British man who also fought bravely. “Courage” is a fine old French word, and the French are as capable of it as any, even if forces in their culture (and ours) work against it.
Thank you, Mike, for this excellent article. Fortunately 2 of the men were well trained by our military and knew exactly what to do to disarm the guy.
I found it interesting that the Frenchman & the American/Frenchman initially did not want to be identified. (I think one is still unknown.). Do you think that is due to fear of retaliation by extremists? My guess is fear is that palpable in France and many other European countries now. What are your thoughts?
It was amazing how humble the Englishman and 3 Americans were! Remarkable!!!!
Was just making a similar point with a guy who “does’t like guns.” Told him Mao was right when he said, “Power grows from the barrel of a gun.” And then I told him that only means taking the power away from civilians so that the government (which always has guns) can kill them or make them do what the government dictates. Disempowering the people isn’t a good idea so it’s weird that the Democrats keep trying to do it. But then: they don’t like guns so they know a lot less about the subject than the average armed American.
They know a lot more about the subject than you give them credit for – which is exactly why they want to take the power away from civilians.
i’m not giving them (non gun owners) less credit than they’re due. When I point out to them the Mao quote and what it really means to citizens who are disarmed – they don’t try to contradict me because some of them actually begin to see what gun owners are talking about. And that applies particularly to what they don’t know about self defense and the right to defend human life – with guns. What I’m really doing with that is discrediting the Democrats who’re the ones who’ve been deceiving them all along. :-)