From the Winnipeg Free Press. (H/T ECM)
Excerpt:
A Port Colborne, Ont., man whose home was attacked has ended up facing charges himself.
Niagara Regional Police say a man emerged from his home with a handgun and fired it after several Molotov cocktails were thrown at the home.
Police say three suspects wearing dark clothes got away in a car after the cocktails were thrown early Sunday morning.
There is nothing to suggest any of them were injured when the gun was fired.
By the time police and firefighters arrived, the homeowner had already doused several small fires and damage to the home was minimal.
Ian Thomson, 53, is charged with careless use of a firearm.
The point is that this is yet another step in undermining the traditional roles of men as being protectors and providers and moral leaders in their homes. Men are viewed as being unreliable because the responsible men are being passed over by young unmarried women, and when things don’t work out, they turn to government. It’s another step in the long march to turn men into immature wallets and sperm-donors who have no role in the family at all and just work at menial jobs, drink beer, watch sports, and sit around on the couch, while all-female arrangements (or the government-run day care system) raise the children.
What are the traditional roles for men?
Provider
Every time that the government taxes a man and redistributes his wealth, it removes the need for a man who can provide, and so women don’t have to choose good men to be providers. And that removes the responsibility of making good choices about men from a women. Moreover, if there is no father needed because the government pays for everything, then women don’t get the benefit of having a man to moderate them (which works in reverse, of course), and to help them to raise the children to have moral standards and a sense of accountability. The man gets the authority to do these things by being the primary breadwinner. Democrat dream programs like nationalized day care only marginalize men even more.
Protector
Every time the government passes restrictions on home defense with legally owned firearms, and even worse, on concealed-carry of firearms, it takes away the need for a woman to choose a man who is able and willing to protect his family. If a woman doesn’t have to depend on her husband to protect her (as a last resort), then she doesn’t have to court carefully and choose a man who has protective instincts, no criminal record, and who has a legally-owned firearm and the freedom to use it to defend her and the children. (Note: women should have concealed-carry permits and firearms, too – there is no difference between men and women here, both have to defend the nest and the chicks)
Moral/spiritual leader
Every time the government passes restrictions on smacking, school choice, mandatory sex education, etc., or undermines morality and religion in any other way, it undermines the role of the father as spiritual and moral leader, and makes it less important for a woman to choose a man who will be the spiritual and moral leader in the home. She won’t have to court as carefully, because it’s now the government’s job to educate the children on morality and spirituality. And the government will be there to undermine anything he does tell the kids with public schools, speech codes, etc.
The point of this is to show what happens when men and women vote for bigger and bigger government to provide more and more things. If women have sex with men too early and then develop the view that they are unreliable, then they vote for bigger government for security, then government will take over traditional male responsibilities. Similarly, the worst kind of lazy, cowardly, ignorant men will freely abdicate their obligations to work hard so that they can share with their neighbors and lead families. My point is to show how this can be be sped up or slowed down based on the policies people vote it. If you want men to have a BIGGER role in the family, then get rid of the safety net, cut taxes, and stop the courts and the police from penalizing men for acting like… men. You get the men you vote for. So vote wisely!
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Wintery,
You are so completely right. Well said.
LikeLike
Hey Tom, where ya been? Missed ya.
LikeLike
New Foundland? I hope you didn’t pay too much for the graphic!
LikeLike
Well…moved recently and started a new job. And am starting another master’s degree next week. So, I’ve only been lurking through my Google reader skimming posts and such; just haven’t had the time to come and post a comment but wish I could have! I’ve missed interacting too!
LikeLike
Wintery, you are stretching it a bit.
This has nothing to do with men’s positions of protector/provider.
This is a gun’s rights issue for anyone, male or female. This is a direct violation of people having the right to protect their home with a fire arm when they are being blatantly attacked.
Don’t get me wrong. Any man worth his salt will do this protection thing. And I appreciate any man who steps up to the plate in this.
There is a move to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and to criminalize the use of guns in self-defensive measures.
And this is wrong. Over-the-top wrong on the part of any government.
You pulling this into a, male vs. feminism thing is too much of a stretch and I’m calling you on it. You have no basis for this except for your determination to blame feminism for all of society’s ills and need to find the evil demon of feminism under every rock or tree and anywhere else you might imagine it to exist.
LikeLike
I’m somewhat sympathetic to the idea that he discharged his weapon carelessly… At least one shot fired, but no gremlin injured?
I mean, I understand the stress of being woken up and seeing your house on fire, but that’s why you practice.
Proper grip. Good sight picture. Check your breathing. Nice even pull, straight back…
This is one of those demagogued issues where liberals just don’t have their facts straight. Anti-gun laws do nothing but encourage violent crime. It’s shown statistically again and again. DC and Chicago proved it in a negative direction (draconian gun laws in place, increase in violence) and soon they’ll show it in a positive direction, but I guarantee this will still be a liberal nanny state touch stone issue.
Which is why 2nd amendment participants need to practice more. :)
LikeLike
LOL. James, you are making it very hard for me to continue to be sad. Now, imagine if the police arrested people for improper fire control. Oh, that would be awesome!
LikeLike
This is an excellent post, WK. Spot on.
Mara, I don’t think he’s stretching it. These things are all interlinked. Draconian gun control laws come from the idea that any sort of force to defend right must actually be bad because it implies an objective standard of right and wrong and limits the actions of others based on that standard. Limiting the actions of others is seen as evil because it limits self indulgence and the right to do whatever one wants, which is considered the ultimate good. With this goes a lashing out at traditional structures of authority and leadership that have exercised that limiting power. Feminism does this by seeking to undermine male leadership and feminize men, removing one of the ways in which men use power to defend right.
LikeLike
Thanks Mary. When I took criminal law as an elective, we had a defense attorney as a guest lecturer and he basically said that criminals should never be punished because crime was the fault of inequalities in society. This is the attitude that causes government to disarm the law-abiding population. We wouldn’t want any criminals to get hurt, now would we? Oh, no – not the nice little criminals. Sigh.
Does anyone have any idea what it is to be a man and to care for a wife and children, and to have to worry about their safety? It’s terrible! And how do you think man feels when he has to call 9-11 and then hope that the police arrive in time? That’s not going to make men want to take on a family. What the government needs to do is to be hard on criminals, and let men defend their families. And women should have the same capabilities to fire a weapon as a man, because it cancels their weaker upper body strength and makes them equally good at defending the home – which makes husbands feel better if there are TWO protectors of the home.
LikeLike
“Feminism does this by seeking to undermine male leadership and feminize men, removing one of the ways in which men use power to defend right.”
Really was just going to drop it and let you two have the last word on this. I really really was. Not because you convinced me, but because I like you people.
Yet,I’m kind of having a hard time with this last statement, Wintery, because we have to remember and realize that men don’t always use their power to defend right. And one of the reasons for the original feminists that men DID NOT defend the rights of women. They used their might to continue to disadvantage women and to protect their own power base.
I’m all for men being men. But I’m not for men having all the leadership. That’s off-balanced and disadvantages women. It needs to be shared with women.
I know you believe this too.
Michele Bachmann for president!
(actually, you keep talking about her but I haven’t been keeping that close attention. Guess I better start paying attention, right?)
LikeLike
It’s not that kind of world anymore, Mara. You can’t marry Bible Barbie and hope to raise godly kids and evanglelize neighbors. My wife would have to organize events with the university students at the university, do apologetics stuff in church, host outreaches with our neighbors and co-workers, host traveling speakers and students, model marriage for students by inviting them over, write a blog, teach the kids, influence policy (eventually becoming President once the kids were all in school), etc. It’s a dangerous world. The woman needs to come into the marriage educated, wealthy and with a habit of engaging in regular combat. Every Christian woman needs to be scrappy and defiant like Ann Coulter. Maybe with the good manners of Michele Bachmann, but she has to know what she believes and why. There are only two kinds of women now… lady lions, and the kind you don’t marry. And you should be looking for the man to court you for that purpose. If a woman is expecting that marriage is about her needs being met with fun and amusement, then I know right away that she isn’t ready for war.
When you are talking about submission, you’re thinking that I’m going to order you to mop the floor. It’s not like that. It’s that I’m going to ask you, for the good of the family, to get a JD in defamation law and tax law. I’m going to ask you, for the good of the family, to do an MA in apologetics part-time at Biola University. I’m going to ask you to be cognizant of my needs as a man to have you represent marriage well by complimenting me with your gossipy non-Christian friends when they start to mock men. I’m going to lead. And during the courtship, that is your LAST CHANCE to decide if you want to submit to me or to someone else. Once I get married, I expect my wife to trust me to tell her things that have a VERTICAL DIMENSION. Everything I ask her to do is going to be to serve the Lord. I’m going to ask for help, because I am trying to do something for the Lord, and when she gives her consent to marry me that means that she is morally obligated to help me with my plan. Your only way out is to say “this doesn’t help you to serve God”. To say “this is not fun for me” is not an option after the wedding.
The plan for Christians today is NOT to to marry in order to make ourselves happy, and to try to squeeze out as much happiness from the other person as we can, while doing nothing for them ourselves, and mocking them to our friends behind their backs. Marriage is about self-sacrificial love of the annoying spouse with all their warts, in close quarters, and loving messy children for the Lord over a long period of time. You get married so you have someone to love well – someone who knows what you are doing to them and allows it, and someone who loves you back the same way, because they want to protect and grow your relationship with God.
LikeLike
Mara, thanks for liking me, despite our differences on this topic. I rather like you too and I consider you a valued sister in Christ. But don’t let that stop you challenging me either. I can take it. :) As long as we keep it respectful, debate is good.
LikeLike
Be careful with Mara, she looks like this:
Oh, she seems cute enough on the surface, but she has nasty pointy teeth! And she has bat wings and a devil-tail! I wouldn’t go near her!
LikeLike
Well that’s rich coming from you, you great lobster! See folks, I did a background check on this dude and it turns out he’s a FUGITIVE. The true identity of the Wintery Knight is revealed…
Behold Louie the Lobster: http://www.wackytimes.com/WackyTimesLobster.html
LikeLike
But I’m better now! Can’t a lobster change?
LikeLike
Hmph. Maybe. Hmph. Hmph.
LikeLike
Well, at least you got my good side, Wintery.
And it’s a good thing for you I just plain don’t have time to answer your 8/26/10 – 2:08 post.
All I can say is, Wow.
Don’t have time for any more.
LikeLike
Mary, it’s good to know this. I like good respectful debate too. I want to present a strong arguement, not shout someone down. Nor do I want to be shouted down.
It’s hard to find a place where people with such strong and different opinions can do this.
LikeLike