But here's the thing - when we had troops in Baghdad we saw a reduction in crime too.
And if it takes a military occupation to stop the violence, it's not a success. It's a suppression.
If the root causes aren't addressed, then when the troops leave things will return to normal (or get even worse).
And if the troops don't leave? If you can only maintain your reduction in crime by a massive military presence?
Doesn't sound much like freedom, does it?
Which is funny. Because the gun rights activists are apparently willing to accept numerous children being murdered by guns in the name of freedom. (I sometimes wonder if Alex Jones's lies about Sandy Hook we're just so gun rights supporters didn't have to confront that. They can pretend it was all paid actors, and overlook the consequences of their policies).
If freedom means doing absolutely nothing to prevent murderers shooting school children, why are you suddenly okay with massive federal involvement in preventing murders in DC?
No comments:
Post a Comment