An Awesome Alan Keyes Rant

Alan Keyes went on some wingnut talk show and delivered a breathtaking rant against gun control, saying that it’s all party of a conspiracy to kill — I’m not making this up — billions of people, to reduce the number of people on earth from billions to hundreds of millions and to make sure that Americans are slaughtered “by the hundreds of thousands.”

Comments

  1. says

    — I’m not making this up —

    Dave Barry, eat your heart out.

    Insofar as it’s worthwhile applying any kind of logic to Keyes’ rants (or do anything other than pointing and laughing), one can’t help but wonder:

    1- How does Keyes make the connection from any proposed gun control measures in the US to the alleged global depopulation plot?
    2- Why would other jurisdictions already possesing more stringent firearms regulation not already have begun their depopulation efforts?

  2. roundguy says

    You know, it isn’t so comforting realizing that the craziest people have most of the weapons.

  3. raven says

    This is just garden variety wingnut ranting. Nothing original about it.

    They believe that the UN and various other groups, Illuminati, Trilaterals, UFO aliens, elves, etc.. have a population reduction plan for the earth.

    And their favorite delusions all feed into that. Vaccines, universal health care, science education, sex ed., eating more vegetables, you name it, it is going to kill billions of people.

    One rather slow witted Mormon once told me the government had a plan to force us to eat bugs for dinner. Because his daughter learned in school that some cultures eat insects.

  4. brucegee1962 says

    One of the most disturbing thing about this brand of conspiracy theorists is that they seem to believe that, if Evil Obama was to issue an order demanding that the army and national guard start rounding up the population and stick them into death camps, the ONLY check on that order would be the Heroic Gun Owners. Apparently in their world, all the officers and soldiers would just cheerfully and blindly follow the chain of command.

    Sorry, if I believed that was true, I wouldn’t focus my efforts on gun ownership, I’d focus on DISBANDING THE MILITARY. But fortunately, I’m pretty sure we don’t live in that world, and any president who gave that order would get deposed and locked up faster than the evil Kirk did in “Mirror, Mirror.”

  5. trucreep says

    “Alan Keyes went on some wingnut talk show”

    That’s all you need to know in order to brush it off and not care. I mean, WHO is Alan Keyes?? These are all obscure wackos it seems.

    On a similar note, I’m feeling that way towards Fox News lately – it’s like, okay we get what they’re all about, they’re not very relevant to intelligent discussion anymore.

  6. says

    Curses, foiled! He outed the vast conspiracy!! Meeting @12:00am under the big tree, usual password to get in, we’ve got to adjust our plans quickly..

  7. says

    I live in Texas. It’s kind of hard for me to completely dismiss nuts like this as irrelevant and ignorable when my dad has some coworkers who sympathize with them. Though he once immediately and vocally dismissed such a nut as stupid when the topic came up, which effectively shut up the sympathizing coworker before he expressed his sympathy, presumably out of embarrassment.

  8. says

    which effectively shut up the sympathizing coworker before he expressed his sympathy, presumably out of embarrassment.

    Maybe he just had to take a few hours to think up a witty comeback.

  9. baal says

    Note to the Sam Harris haters, the core of Alan’s argument is the quite similar to Sam’s. No guns = the least powerful are unable to ‘balance the scales’ (or equivalent metaphor).

    Mr. Keyes, of course has a problem with 1) scale (and numbers) 2) facts to the contrary on a) stable countries have low rates gun ownership b) totalitarian countries may or may not have lots of gun owners.

    Having seen a lot of him back in the Clinton years, it’s a little sad to see him aged. He’s no Hermain Cain but had a certain appeal regardless. I really liked his crowd surfing event that was the death nail in his presidential campaign (yes that guy fell prey to a stunt and allowed himself to crowd surf).

  10. says

    ‘The Talk to Solomon Show Live’?

    “Caller on line 1. Go ahead caller…”
    “Hi, Solomon. Look, I’ve got a probl…”
    “Okay, I’m going to cut you off there. Did you try cutting it in half? Next caller!”
    “Hello, Solomon, I called to get help on a probl…”
    “Cut it in half! Next caller!”

  11. says

    Alan: If the President wants you dead – you’re pretty much dead. He has drones. You have assault rifles.

    It’s not a fair fight. You won’t even hear the explosion that blows you into fine mist.

    So, let’s stop this nonsense about how private firearms are a protection against tyranny, OK?

  12. says

    If the President wants you dead – you’re pretty much dead. He has drones. You have assault rifles.

    Well, more precisely, you might get to watch some of your friends and neighbors get blown up first, if they have the bad judgement to live anywhere near anyone who looks like you.

  13. joachim says

    Of course the elite would like to reduce the population.

    Its been going on since Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” became well know in the early seventies.

    What is not suprising is that the anti theists would become very angry when it is brought to light.

    And remember…When People Die, Obama Lies.

  14. slc1 says

    Re joachim @ #16

    Hey schmuck, how’s the search for WMDs that Obama’s predecessor insisted were in Iraq going?

  15. davidhart says

    Joachim@16:
    I think you may have become confused. The proposition that there are currently more humans than the global ecosystem can support does not mean that one has to favour genocide as a means of reducing the population. If you genuinely can’t imagine that someone would a) be concerned about the long-term sustainability of the human population at its present numbers, and b) advocate non-violent solutions such as the promotion of family planning services and contraception, and the elimination of the sort of factors (such as poverty, high infant mortality and female subjugation to the reproductive cycle) that lead to high birth rates, you might want to try imagining a little harder.

    This is not to say that population reduction per se is necessarily our most pressing concern – only that if you think those who argue for it are necessarily the bad guys, you will need to explain what evidence you have for holding that position.

  16. joachim says

    Re sick 1, number 17.

    Who cares, bitch? Does that excuse Obama continuing the wars, using drones on civilians, and targeting Amrerican citizens?

  17. joachim says

    No. 18, case in point…abortion.

    As David Duke has shown there would be over 20 million more blacks in this country without abortion.

    And you wouldn’t want that would you? Admit it.

    And I actually see people argue that abortion reduces crime, by elimintating the offspring of the riff raff.

    What do you think Eugenics was all about? Margaret Sanger, an atheist, knew what she was talking about when she talked about “human weeds”.

  18. freemage says

    Joachim: Actually, you disingenuous shit, abortion DOES reduce crime, because crime rates have a sizeable economic component–and abortion access reduces the number of children born into poverty. It also allows women the time to be able to get to a point where they can actually support a child.

    As for your David Duke citation, did he happen to calculate how many more whites there would be without abortion? Because I’d be willing to bet it’s more than 20 million. So, you know, so much for faux outrage over a not-really-racist policy.

  19. slc1 says

    Re joachim @ #19

    Hey fuckface, Obama’s predecessor lied us into the Iraq war in the first place. And was also responsible for the success of the 9/11 attacks because he ignored the warnings of folks like Richard Clarke that an attack was coming. This is in addition to his predecessor pissing away a 150 billion surplus through tax cuts for the rich and a trillion dollar war based on lies.

  20. lorn says

    As I understand it, I studied military history, most military practitioners fully understood that the Minuteman story was a myth. Yes, colonists using squirrel rifles were able to pick off British regulars and generally make things difficult for smaller British forces. This skill is useful, but not decisive. Organized forces had long used some form of skirmisher to harass, delay, and help contain larger forces. The Minutemen were essentially, cheap, half-trained, loosely organized skirmishers.

    Fine in some roles you cannot effectively take or hold territory or stop a large force with skirmishers. And history shows that in the very early days of the war, when the British were sending out small forces, essentially large patrols, the Minutemen had some effect on the action but that when the British moved as an integrated and coordinated army ( a large force of regulars, skirmishers of their own, cavalry and artillery) they swept aside colonial resistance. There was a very long string of bruising defeats for the revolutionaries.

    It was only after Washington had trained and equipped his own conventional army that he saw any substantial victories.

    The point is that weapons do not make the force. A well trained, organized, led, and logistically supported force will usually defeat a poorly trained, poorly organized, poorly lead, and unsupported force. Even if the well trained force has less capable weapons.

    Shortly after the revolutionary war there were a series of rebellions, the so called whiskey rebellion was one, and the government sent in colonial regulars to put the rebellions down. It worked like a charm. A large and well organized force dominates the field.

    The only time a regular army has problems is when a guerrilla force is supported with supplies, arms, and manpower by a major outside power through a safe haven. Limited to the manpower of the local population and the resources that are immediately at hand they simply cannot stand up to a organized force for very long. The limiting factors are logistical.

    Contrary to myth the key to our defeat in Vietnam was not the military prowess of the Vietcong. What won the day was the logistical genius in getting huge amounts of Chinese and Soviet material support south through neutral countries the US was reluctant to invade.

    Understanding this you have some idea as to why neither the government nor the military has any fear of people stockpiling assault rifles and ammunition. They simply are not a credible threat. Those resources are not what win wars or threaten governments. Show me a large and well financed militia group with organizational and logistical lines of communication to a sanctuary area and major foreign power and I’ll show you who they are worried about.

    Bubba squatting in the woods with his resentments and an AR doesn’t worry anyone who knows about such things. He is a local law enforcement problem.

  21. joachim says

    Hey, sick 1, number 22.

    Are you really that stupid? Of course his predecessor did all kinds of shit. And he is contininuing and adding his own shit.

    You stupid cunt.

  22. slc1 says

    Re lom @ #23

    Actually, the minutemen had one advantage over the British regular forces. They were using rifled muskets against the British smooth bores, which gave the former a big advantage in effective range.

  23. slc1 says

    Re joachim @ #24

    Mr. joachim, a man who doesn’t know his fuckken ass from a fuckken hole in the fuckken ground, fails to note that Obama is getting US forces out of Iraq and plans to get them out of Afghanistan. Obama inherited a shit sandwich from his predecessor, the most incompetent president in US history, save only, perhaps, James Earl Carter. He has also commendably declined to intervene directly in Libya and has declined to intervene in Syria, for which the neocons have mercilessly criticized him. Does Mr. joachim think that a President McCain or a President Rmoney would have shown the same restraint?

  24. The Cat From Outer Space says

    Re lorn @ 23

    I just finished reading a book on the 1956 Hungarian revolution and its subsequent crushing by the Soviet Union. In the early parts of the revolution in late October, loosely organised Hungarians (generally with some military training due to the national service requirements), armed with surplus weapons from sympathetic Hungarian army and police, were able to hold off, and in some cases, defeat much more numerous better armed Soviet troops.

    How? Originally, Soviet forces, having forgotten the lessons of Stalingrad and Berlin, sent in tanks with no infantry support piecemeal (attempting a bit of “shock and awe”) with few or no clear directives. They were easy prey for Molotov cocktails in an urban setting. Later, Soviet infantry were sent in (once again, with few clear orders or directives) with no armour, leaving them prey to ambushes and Hungarian tanks (or Soviet tanks captured by Hungarians). Eventually, the Soviets pulled out of Budapest because of minutemen like irregulars (and parts of the Hungarian military).

    Of course this only lasted until November, when the Soviets got better organised, and sent in a larger, well led force with clear orders and directives. They crushed the rebels in a matter of days. Which really goes to show what would happen to a couple of guys armed with deer rifles and the odd Bushmaster AR against a technologically and tactically superior army. Like these idiots and the US army.

Leave a Reply