Discoveroid Silence about San Bernardino

Slasher

There’s no need to recite the horrific events which occurred yesterday in San Bernardino. The politicians are busy blaming each other’s policies, and we intend to remain aloof from that. But something is missing from all that mud-slinging. Where’s the Discovery Institute?

In particular, we’re looking for commentary by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. The graphic above this post is in his honor.

Whenever something horrible happens, the Discoveroids are quick to blame Darwin, and they usually assign the task to Klinghoffer, who excels at that kind of work. If you need any examples, we can give you a few — see Discovery Institute: Feasting on Death, and also Discovery Institute: Columbine Was Darwin’s Fault! Klinghoffer has also attempted to link Charles Darwin to: Hitler, and communism, and Stalin, and Charles Manson, and Mao Tse-tung, and Dr. Josef Mengele.

If you’ve been waiting for the expected volcano of vomit from Seattle, it’s unlikely to happen. In fact, they probably won’t mention the shootings in San Bernardino at all. Why? For the same reason they never talk about any of the atrocities committed by fanatical Islamic terrorists. It’s because those people — like the Discoveroids — reject evolution and “materialist science.” They’re fellow creationists, and even Klinghoffer can’t blame their crimes on Darwin.

All we can expect from the Discoveroids is silence — and their silence says a lot.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Discoveroid Silence about San Bernardino

  1. michaelfugate

    Shouldn’t Wesley Smith yammer about human exceptionalism and life is sacred and euthanasia is a slippery slope and if we of course just believed in gods and why we are better than other animals – except we aren’t animals but created in god’s image and …..

    A country where ~ 90% believe in gods and yet murder – let alone the other accidental and war-related killings – 16,000 or so each year…

  2. michaelfugate, high murder rate and war-related killings? Sounds like we’re created in gods image to me, or at least the biblical one anyway.

  3. Dave Luckett

    I know you can’t change your gun culture, or your gun laws. I know it’s because the Constitution and the NRA and Congress and yadayadayada.

    So it’s no use getting all sad about the occasional shooting massacre. Loonies happen, and in the US it takes no intelligence and practically no resources to obtain an SLR fully as efficient at killing people as any military small arm – often the very same weapon. The rest must follow. Americans, as a culture, a polity and a people, have decided that it’s more important to have it that way than to restrict the amount of murder loonies can do. Some Americans have even managed to convince themselves that restricting access to firearms would have the reverse effect. Whatever.

    You’ve made up your minds on that. I wish you well of it, but you do know, don’t you, that everyone else in the developed democracies thinks you’re nuts?

  4. Ham is touching on it, somewhat indirectly:

    https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/12/03/god-isnt-fixing-this/

    New York Daily News had the headline “God Isn’t Fixing This”, calling out a number of politicians on their sanctimonious twitters to the effect that people had to keep the victims in their prayers. Apparently the paper is calling for stricter gun control rather than platitudes.

    Whatever one’s position on gun control is, the headline “God Isn’t Fixing This” obviously caused Ham to have a fit.

    Though it would seem to be empirical fact that God is, in fact, not fixing this.

  5. I posted this previously on the David Rives Free-Fire Zone, but it fits this thread better:

    It’s hard to think of any way to limit these senseless mass shootings since the guns are already out there by the millions and millions, and the Second Amendment will not be changed. Unless…

    Unless a courageous politician emphasizes “the well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment, and limits access to purchase ammunition (and primers) to those licensed by their state’s militia. US citizens with clean records and no limiting mental health issues would be eligible for such a license. Most members of the NRA should qualify. Not a perfect control, but one that could help in limiting the carnage.

    While we are at it, we should also make it much harder to make pipe bombs, pressure-cooker bombs, and the like by limiting access to gunpowder, fireworks, smokeless powder, ammonium nitrate, and other compounds that can so easily be made into IEDs. I’m surprised that hasn’t been done already.

  6. @Dave Luckett: SLR? When I Googled it, the only thing that came up was “Single-Lens Reflex” camera. I know you’re referring to a semi-automatic assault rifle, or a hand gun of some type, but not sure what the acronym would be.

  7. SLR: self-loading rifle. The Australian army so referred to the weapon they thrust into my hand. lo, these many years ago. To be precise, it was in that long-vanished era, a 7.62mm Nato load FN semiautomatic rifle. The Belgians, who manufactured it, called it a FAL (fusil automatique leger = light automatic rifle) but we of the Anzac breed called it an SLR, pronounced “slar”, because we didn’t like the idea of firing the bloody thing on full automatic. For very good reason, I might add. Good way to shoot the bloke standing next to you.

    Australia now uses some piddling little pipsqueak of a 5.56 mm burp gun. I disdain such things. Come to think of it, I disdain the whole lot, root and branch.

  8. retiredsciguy, according to Jefferson in Notes on Virginia, the militia was all free-born males, between 16 and 60 50 (if I recall correctly). When ordered by the Governor, they were required to assemble. Presumably, they were to bring their own firearms.

  9. @Dave Luckett
    I was instructed that even when firing a heavy machine gun, one that is mounted on a tripod, one should squeeze out a few rounds at a time, not run through the hundreds of rounds a minute that it is capable of. Is that still true?
    The Tommy-gun toting gangsters in the movies didn’t seem to be displined in the proper use of their weapons.
    When I see those WWII movies of air combat, they seem to be firing on full automatic, which, if nothing else, is going to use up quickly the restricted weight of rounds which an airplane could carry.

  10. Dave Luckett

    Tom S,
    I only received general training on the M60, which was then the standard section support weapon used by Australia, but the standard was four rounds per burst and aimed at a specific point target, unless otherwise ordered, (as for example area suppressive fire) and even then short bursts only. The thing overheated; changing the barrel was a pain, and it always had to be done at the worst possible moment, see Murphy’s Law. Ammunition was to be conserved, not only because it cost money (although I think that might have been a consideration) but because every round had to be carried in, on somebody’s back. I suppose it goes back to basic field operational concepts: the Australian army was then conceived as light infantry, meant to be as mobile over difficult terrain as possible. I have very little idea of how much other armies are constrained by these considerations.

    As for air weapons, I haven’t a clue. I read somewhere that the total load-out for a Spitfire V was the equivalent of about twelve seconds of sustained fire. Air cannon had to be actually slowed down, or they’d expend their entire load in a couple of short bursts – 20 mm ammunition takes up a lot of volume. But certainly medium bombers set up for the task could carry a lot of ammunition for the ground-attack role. B25’s, as modified, carried all kinds of load-outs for a battery of guns in the nose, and could be liberal about using them. But that was for a very specific purpose. I have no idea how long the 30-mm load-out of say, an A-20 “Warthog” would last. Not long, I think. The thing is a mini gun, and the amount of ammunition it must go through is terrifying to contemplate.

  11. @Dave Luckett: SLR = self-loading rifle. Thanks.

    To join the conversation with you and Tom S, I went through the US Coast Guard’s officer candidate school, and thus had limited firearms instruction. We did receive training with side arms, but not rifles.

    We did, however, get to have some fun with the Coast Guard specialty — the line-throwing gun. (I imagine the Navy used the same equipment as well.)
    A line-throwing gun is a .30 caliber rifle with the rifling bored out, into which a meter-long metal rod is inserted with a thin line attached to the front end, which extends from the muzzle. A blank cartridge with full powder load was chambered, and the firer had two men supporting him from behind, one in front of the other, placing hands squarely on the shoulders of the man in front of him. It essentially was a spear-throwing gun. I volunteered to be the firer. My shoulder was sore for at least a week.

    The idea is to safely transfer a tow rope from the CG ship to a disabled boat or ship. Once the thin line was fired over the disabled ship, it could then be used to pull a heavier rope across.

  12. retiredsciguy: Sounds like my father’s description of firing the Boyes .55-in antitank rifle, a piece of equipment issued to British and Commonwealth forces, mainly, as it turned out, for decorative purposes. It was capable of penetrating about 15 mm of standard flat-rolled plate at 120 yards, and would have been just the bee’s knees against Panzer I’s and half-tracks, if the gunner didn’t break his shoulder on the recoil. It is true that it is the only piece of Allied anti-tank equipment known to have shot down an aircraft, but the effect on the gunner must have been almost as painful as the fate of the Stuka pilot. He fired from the supine position on a ship’s deck in Piraeus harbour, with the bipod braced on the ship’s rail.

  13. @Dave Luckett: Wow! No, the line-throwing gun wasn’t that bad, but it would have knocked me over if I hadn’t been supported from behind.

    The experience with the .55 inch anti-tank gun probably explains why rocket-powered bazookas were the anti-tank weapon of choice. No recoil.

  14. The “silence” is because they are complicit. These fringe Christian extremists have been quietly sending missionaries over to the Middle East not to convert but to rile up Islamists to bring about their version of Revelation events. The ISIS types are very dialed in to Pat Robertson, et al, believing that the apocalypse will usher in the 12th Imam to fulfill prophesies in the Qu-uran.

  15. michaelfugate

    Does having a standing army mean that the 2nd amendment should be reinterpreted?

  16. michaelfugate asks: “Does having a standing army mean that the 2nd amendment should be reinterpreted?”

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms isn’t a temporary expedient. Given the Founders’ fears of a standing army, I think the answer to your question is “No.”