"I am opposed to self-defense"---French President
Well, well, isn’t he special
Paul Joseph Watson: “After a farmer was charged with murder for shooting a man after four burglars broke into his home, French President Emmanuel Macron said people should not have the right to self-defense.”
“According to the initial investigation, the farmer fired twice with a large caliber rifle at a group of four burglars, killing one of them. The self-defense shooting took place last Friday, between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., and the man was alone with his 3-year-old daughter at the time,” reports Remix News.”
“However, Macron responded to the story by asserting that the 35-year-old farmer had no right to defend himself or his daughter in such a manner.”
“’Everyone must be safe, and the public authorities have to ensure it,’ Macron told Europe 1.”
“’But I am opposed to self-defense. It’s very clear and undisputable because otherwise the country becomes the Wild West. And I don’t want a country where weapons proliferate and where we consider that it’s up to the citizens to defend themselves,’ said Macron.”
“Macron insisted that the farmer should have called the police…”
“…After being charged with murder, the farmer was released but will remain under judicial supervision.”
Where to begin?
The President of France is clearly insane.
Wait. Let me modify that. According to current political standards, he’s quite sane.
STANDARD: “CITIZENS ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.”
SIDEBAR: Macron has a security detail. They’re armed. They’re with him. They protect him. So he wouldn’t need to call the police if thieves broke into HIS home.
PHYSICS: Macron believes the government can enact a time warp. You see, a person whose home is invaded by thieves in the middle of the night can call the police at that moment---and the operator presses a button and time reverses by, say, a half-hour or an hour. Therefore, the police arrive at the person’s home just before the thieves enter.
EITHER-OR PRINCIPLE: You can’t have police AND the right of citizens to defend themselves. It’s one or the other. I see.
BOTTOM LINE: The citizen must die at the hands of thieves (and so must his child). This sacrifice is collateral damage in the service of maintaining the basic standard: Citizens are at the mercy of the government. If the government can’t protect a citizen, the citizen gives up any other option.
Corollary: The citizen does not own his property, since he can’t defend it.
Corollary: The citizen does not own his life, since he can’t defend it.
Corollary: Guns in the hands of private citizens are evil. The overwhelming percentage of gun owners would only use them against other humans to defend themselves against criminal attacks. But because a tiny percentage would use guns to commit crimes, all other gun owners must surrender their right to own a gun.
Corollary: It would be a waste of time and resources for government employees to distinguish between use of a gun in self-defense and use of a gun to commit a crime. Therefore, ALL uses of a gun against humans are a crime.
SQUEEZE PLAY: In France, in certain migrant communities, there are already no-go zones. The police will not enter. The threat is too great. But keep insisting that more and more and more migrants should be allowed to move to France, WHILE charging any citizen who uses a gun, in self-defense, with murder. These policies, taken together, REVEAL A CLEAR INTENTION TO CAUSE CHAOS AND DESTROY THE NATION.
SOLUTION: At the behest of 50,000 French policemen who dislike him, President Macron is moved to a sketchy neighborhood where he is installed in a house with many doors and windows. His security detail is removed. Eventually, when thieves break into his home in the middle of the night, he can call the cops and ask for help.
SIDEBAR: As a general principle, all politicians and celebrities who demand that private citizens should engage in self-sacrificial behavior…will BECOME those private citizens and see how they like following their own advice.
This is why I should become King. I have good ideas.
As my first order of business, I would make up a list of a dozen or so famous people who urge self-sacrificial behavior. Starting with California Governor Gavin Newsom. Gavin embraces open borders, sanctuary cities, and the essential goodness of migrants. Fine. He will open up his home to a few dozen randomly selected adult migrants. They will live there for the duration. No security. We will see what happens over time.
It makes perfect sense. Why should these elite folk impose their highly questionable rules on others, until they have tested out the rules on themselves?
I’m looking for holes in this logic; and there aren’t any. It’s airtight.
As King, I’m deciding on a name for my new policy edict. Names are important. They convey tone and attitude. I’m debating between CELEBS CAN PROVE THEY’RE WONDERFUL and the slightly unwieldy, FUCK YOU, CELEBS, I’VE GOT A SHOTGUN IN MY HOME AT MIDNIGHT, JUST IN CASE, BECAUSE UNLIKE YOU, I DON’T HAVE A PRIVATE SECURITY DETAIL THAT ALLOWS ME TO GET ALL HIGH AND MIGHTY ABOUT THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF EVERYBODY ELSE.
-- Jon Rappoport