Columbine. Aurora. Virginia Tech. Tuscon. Newtown. What they all have in common, besides being the sites of horrific massacres, is that the crimes were carried out by mentally disturbed gunmen. Whenever an unbalanced individual wants to make a big statement to get the world’s attention, it seems that the gun is the instrument of choice to deliver the message. And aside from being male, the one thing that nearly all mass shooters have in common is that they are mentally and/or emotionally disturbed. But it’s not just the shooters who display bats in the belfry; it’s also a large segment of the American public in reacting to these bloodbaths.
Shortly after the carnage at Sandy Hook, as after any and every mass shooting, the gun lobby began rhapsodizing about how wonderful guns are, and gun sales began soaring, thanks in large part to the NRA’s campaign of paranoia — not about other armed crazies, but about the government. Since President Obama, they declared, wants to “take away your guns”, the thing to do is acquire more of them for him to take away. And millions of gunsters have bought into this transparent marketing ploy. Are these the actions of a sane society?
One of them was Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc., who commented:
“The Obama administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people. If the American people don’t fight back now, Obama will do to the Second Amendment what he has already done to the First with Obamacare; gut it without a moment’s thought to our basic constitutional rights.”
If that’s not loony enough for you, try this. Ward is chairman of Gun Appreciation Day, as if guns weren’t already appreciated more than enough. As discussed in the post Of Guns and Glamor, American pop culture is saturated with the glorification if not downright deification of the almighty gun, which is commonly portrayed as the first, best and/or only solution to any obstacle that blocks your path. Americans don’t just love their guns; they worship their guns, they obsess over their guns, they eat, breathe, and fuck their guns. Are these the sentiments of a mentally balanced society?
Gun Appreciation Day (on which 5 people were injured in 3 accidental shootings) was held on January 19, in proximity to Obama’s second inauguration and the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. That’s a triple nose thumbing: not only was Dr. King murdered with one of their precious toys, but it’s possible that Second Amendment they champion as “the one that makes all the others possible” was actually inserted into the Constitution largely to defend the institution of slavery. Yet today the gun culture passionately believes the Second Amendment to be the very embodiment of liberty, and hold gun ownership itself as being synonymous with liberty. And the president, they maintain, is an enemy to that liberty, a tyrannical dictator who’s actually been (horrors) issuing executive orders lately. Never mind that he’s issued fewer executive orders than any president in the past century. Never mind that the executive orders dealing with firearms are quite sensible and don’t involve “taking away your guns”. We mustn’t let the facts get in our way, or we might succumb to sanity.
The running narrative is to portray “liberals” as being enemies of the Constitution because they tend to support firearm regulations. Never mind that the vast majority of NRA members ( the vast majority of whom are anything but “liberal” ) also support some form of restrictions on guns. Never mind that an icon many of them devoutly revere was a vocal proponent of “gun control”. There’s nothing more important than scoring cheap political points, even if it means exploiting the violent deaths of school children. Jesus H. Christ tap-dancing on a cracker, what is wrong with these people? It certainly isn’t a surfeit of sanity.
The wingnut blogosphere has been abuzz with many rumors and accusations about the Newtown slaughter. For one thing, in rushing to the defense of their beloved assault weapons, gunsters have circulated the claim that the Sandy Hook killer actually used only handguns. It’s been established that the primary weapon was a rifle, but that hardly can be expected to stop the rumors. The big advantage of insanity is that when reality doesn’t fit your worldview, you can just switch to a different reality.
But that wasn’t the nuttiest rumor by any means. Foremost among them is the accusation that the whole thing was just staged, and the grieving parents of the deceased children were in fact hired actors. Yep, a lot of people out there believe that not only the Obama administration and the librulmedia, but also all the students, teachers and parents of Sandy Hook and indeed the entire Newtown community, and even the friends and relatives of the victims from other communities are all involved in a big conspiracy to portray firearms as (heaven forbid) destructive. Does this bear any resemblance whatsoever to a sane thought process?
It’s also vital, of course, for gunsters to try to minimize the horrors of a gun tragedy by drawing irrelevant and pointless comparisons. Many of them absolutely must seize the occasion to remind you that they also consider abortion to be murder just in case you forgot and if you did how dare you. They don’t seem to realize that they’re advocating the same measure for abortion — i.e. government prohibition — that they insist is ineffective for gun violence. It’s also standard operating procedure to point out that more people are killed by automobiles than guns so why don’t we talk about banning automobiles heh heh heh. Never mind that automobiles serve a useful purpose besides killing people, which generally results from improper use, whereas guns are designed to kill, and death is a product of their intended purpose; or that strict “automobile control” has been a fact of life for generations.
And hey, people also can kill with hammers and baseball bats, so how about outlawing them, nyuk nyuk nyuk. Never mind that guns kill at least 20 times as often as all blunt objects combined — all of which, need we add, are designed for a more constructive use. And oh yes, we mustn’t forget knives, which are certainly a significant assault weapon. And presto, at about the same time as the Newtown massacre, a deranged man in China went on a rampage with a knife and wounded 22 school children. So there — see what happens when people don’t have guns?
Now in case you’re really confused here about the difference between the China episode and the Connecticut episode, here’s a little visual aid that might come in handy:
STABBING VICTIM IN CHINA
SHOOTING VICTIM IN CONNECTICUT
You might want to study these two pictures carefully to see if you can spot the difference. You could be tested on it one of these days.
Of course, the gunsters may have picked on China because that country has had its own share of attacks on school students — 10 of them in less than 3 years, all carried out with sharp or blunt instruments. Researchers are trying to sort out the factors that have prompted this sudden rash of violence, but they could save themselves a lot of trouble by just consulting the American Gun Worshiping Cult , which has it all figured out: it’s all because the Chinese can’t access guns as easily as candy. Take away people’s guns, and they’ll turn violent by other means, so you might as well let ’em have guns, eh?
There are at least a couple of little problems with this line of “reasoning”. First, China’s strict firearms code goes back many years, to long before this spate of school attacks that started in 2010. Second, these 10 attacks have produced a total of 25 deaths. The shooter in Connecticut singlehandedly bested China’s collective score in a matter of minutes. To juxtapose these two recent tragedies in order to make the case that the American system of arms for all is preferable to the Chinese system of strict regulation is to imply that it’s better to have 20 dead kids than 22 wounded ones. Is this really the preference of people who have a grip on their mental faculties?
It also has become quite trendy in the wake of these tragedies for gunsters to defend the object of their infatuation by insisting that a gun is “just a tool”. Really? Hammers, toothbrushes and can openers are tools. But do hammer aficionados go out and swing their tools just for fun? Do toothbrush enthusiasts salivate over the sleekest, sexiest models of oral hygiene implements at trade shows? Are there racks and racks of slick magazines at your local bookstore glorifying can openers? Are there hundreds of online forums on which devotees can compare corkscrews and discuss how they take theirs out into the woods and exercise them for sport? Actually, it would make more sense to lavish that kind of attention on such objects, because tools are things that enhance the quality of life. Guns, on the other hand, destroy and disrupt life — by using them for the very purpose for which they’re intended. Nor does it work to justify the fawning adulation by protesting that they’re needed for protection. Burglar alarms, insurance policies and condoms also afford protection. But does any of them boast the kind of cult following that deadly weapons do? The word tool just doesn’t seem to apply to guns. As for many gun owners — well, you be the judge.
I’ve heard plenty from them. Here are, by far, the most widely read and commented upon posts on this blog : (1) The Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban; (2) Estimating Defensive Gun Uses Reasonably; (3) Make My Day: Mention Gun Defense “Statistics”; and (4) The Myth of Constitutional “Gun Rights” ; a Second Look at the Second Amendment. Noticing a pattern here? A large percentage of the readers of these posts have been not so much readers as reactors; they’ve been gun addicts who are upset because I have questioned their dogma. Consequently, they’ve written to inform me that the Second Amendment was written so that citizens could violently overthrow the officials they’ve elected themselves, and that abortion and the “outlawing” of school prayer are responsible for all the nation’s ills, and that Hitler never massacred anyone, and that the U.S. has been taken over by a coalition of atheists, vegetarians, pagans, environmentalists and Muslims. No word yet on whether the extraterrestrial lizard people are also involved.
They’ve called me a “brainwashed liberal”, an “asshole”, an “idiot”, “one bloody walking red fucking herring” (I’m still trying to get a good visual on that one) and “a brain dead gun-grabbing neo-Nazi liberal”. All because I set the record straight by debunking a myth about Hitler — that’s right, not about guns, but about Hitler. It’s still one of their cherished beliefs, though, and anyone who challenges any part of the Gun Gospel is obviously a commie/ traitor/ librul. Heaven knows what they would have said if I’d tried to promote some ideology of my own that conflicts with theirs (as these folks love to accuse me of doing, with no substantiation whatsoever).
I even heard from Alex Jones. Yes, Alex New World Order Jones, who never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. And what did he have to say to me?
“I have never witnessed a more pompous or self absorbed and self righteous individual in my life. You know everything and how everyone should live and what they should believe. Right? Why even bother with a blog like this when you have no room in your inflated head for an honest debate?”
I am intrigued by the possibility that someone who, like me, blogs anonymously to keep himself out of the limelight could be regarded as “pompous”, “self-absorbed” or “self-righteous”. It’s not an impossible scenario, and I’d love to hear the details. Unfortunately, the venerable Mr. Jones didn’t leave a clue as to what led him to that conclusion, or why he believes, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary — even in the comments on the very post he was commenting on, no less — that I leave no room for “honest debate”. But in any case, if I received that kind of sliming from him, I must really be doing something right.
A few days later, Jones appeared on MSNBC as a guest of Piers Morgan, the British media personality whom he’s been trying to get deported because he doesn’t support Jones’ radical interpretation of the Second Amendment (honest debate, all the way). I defy you to watch this “interview” and tell me that these disjointed, spittle-flecked rantings are the product of a healthily functioning cerebrum.
But there are many others like him out there. Indeed, there are many who look up to Jones as a guru, a sage, a prophet. They believe the Obama administration is the new Nazi regime, and that someone would be doing the world a favor by knocking him off. (Perhaps they just feel threatened because a couple of the president’s nefarious executive orders target mental illness.) They fancy themselves the equivalent of the patriots who fought the American Revolution, and are itching to turn their own weapons on anyone who is connected with the big bad guvmint.
War may be an effective metaphor, but for the gun culture, it isn’t just metaphor, but literal reality. Many of its constituents are incapable of expressing ideological differences or complaints about official policy in any but the most extreme, vitriolic, polarized, absolute, oversimplified, dire, overblown and violent of terms. Their worldview admits no other option except us-against-them, or more accurately me-against-them, and they have the compulsive conviction that “them” must be stopped from whatever they’re doing, and even destroyed, in order to save the universe. It’s paranoid schizophrenia at its starkest, and it illustrates why many of them should hardly be allowed to handle a loaded question, much less a loaded weapon.
In a way, it’s fitting that they view their imagined oppression in terms of war, since war itself, with its heavy concentrations of gunnery, is perhaps the ultimate madness: not only does it attempt, as expressed by a popular slogan, to establish who is right by determining who is left, but in a sense it attempts to establish who is more civilized by determining who can behave more barbarically. (For a wickedly satirical take on the war-as-madness conceit, see Philippe de Broca’s 1966 film King Of Hearts.)
I don’t mean to suggest that all gun owners are delusional or that military personnel who use guns as part of their job are playing with a depleted deck; the latter, after all, have a great deal of discipline and at least some realistic context guiding their actions. I don’t know the psychological profile of the “average” combat recruit – I suspect it’s rather more sound than that of the “average “civilian, since the soldier has to pass through a certain amount of screening and filtering, whereas most Americans become citizens just by being born. Additionally, the typical soldier, unlike the typical gun fanatic, is drawn to take up arms by motives more noble than just a love of the hardware and a hatred for the government. But however sound the psyche going into combat, it stands a perilous chance of being severely and permanently impaired by the time it comes out – about one in five combatants who return from Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Warfare may not succeed in converting many of its participants into the kind of outright madmen who made the war a necessity in the first place, but it does its best.
It may not be fair to say that Wayne LaPierre and company want to turn the country into one big war zone. But they are turning it into one big armed psych ward. And how much difference is there?
The Propaganda Professor 
A perfect example of what you’ve written about:
The Genocide Agenda
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle609-20110306-02.html
L. Neil Smith has also been quoted as saying:
“Those who want to take your guns want to do things to you they would not be able to do if you had your guns.”
“The gravest threat to life, liberty, and property in today’s world—especially to life—is the UN.”
The ravings of a true schizoid. Those who believe this, know absolutely nothing about international law and the UN’s limitations. What, are they going to create a world army with it’s $7 billion earmarked for peacekeeping? Don’t look now! All 80,000 Blue Helmets (who are technically only allowed to use their weapons in self-defense) are coming for your guns!
“Those who want to take your guns want to do things to you they would not be able to do if you had your guns.”
Yes, this would maybe be true if anyone were actually trying to take away your guns. But, if you were less clueless, less paranoid, or perhaps more capable of reasoned analysis, you would know this to be the case.
Besides, that statement is a logical fallacy. What if I wished to take your gun because I don’t want YOU to be able to do something to ANYONE ELSE that you would otherwise not be able to do without a gun? Like kill an entire classroom?
“It [the UN] has declared war, in writing, in no uncertain terms, on the Bill of Rights which sorely impedes its goals.”
Please, provide some evidence. Where are the telling UN docs? That whole article had not one citation–nothing–to back up its claims.
“Yes, this would maybe be true if anyone were actually trying to take away your guns. But, if you were less clueless, less paranoid, or perhaps more capable of reasoned analysis, you would know this to be the case.”
That should read, “you would know this to NOT be the case.”
Of Guns and Madness. Yes, your post is well titled because anyone who has ever argued with gun zealots begins to detect a madness soon creep in. One wonders how a psychiatrist would respond to some of them, like, say, Alex Jones.
The spotlight of public scrutiny is now on the daily gun violence that has flown below the radar until Newtown, and the madness that has been set in motion by the booming sales of military-style assault-rifles will now dance into the spotlight every few days to the gasps of a nation once oblivious to the carnage. Now we will also see more of the madness of Wayne LaPierre and his NRA ‘Board of Slimy Characters’ (think Ted Nugent). Public support for guns is about to plummet.
“Public support for guns is about to plummet?” What are you smoking? The American people just bought enough guns and ammo in the last few months to outfit the Chinese and Indian armies. The record gun sales and order backlogs of 26 weeks for some guns and ammo orders show you live in a delusional fantasy world. Public support for guns hasn’t been this high since 1776 and 1861. You Canaanites and Edomites can keep shining each other on that you will finally get your desire to disarm and massacre us, the American people, but the only people posting on this blog that agree with you are your fellow Sayanim agents. You call gun-owners disparaging names like “gunsters” and then try to psychoanalyze them because your minds are small and because you have murderous hostility toward us. You hate us, and you want to kill us. You will never get your wish. Disarmament is always the first step toward genocide. You are exposed. You are foreign to us, the American people, and we will have our country back, and you murderers of John 8:44 will have no quarter anywhere, ever.
Thank you so much for writing this blog. It is so rare to read a literate, cogent, amusing commentary. The reference to the deBroca film is perfect. I’m sure the rocket launcher enthusiasts will be watching the multilingual version.
I was thinking about this the other day, too – especially the part you briefly cover about the Second Amendment existing to provide legitimacy to violent rebellion against elected officials. “Defense against tyranny” sounds good in principle, but it’s up to individuals to decide what constitutes tyranny – and if “gun control” equals tyranny, then hardliners are already trying to provide moral cover for violence.
After all, most shooters (especially of the Anders Breivik mold) believed that they have to “do something” to prevent the world from slipping into something they don’t like. What, exactly, is the difference supposed to be between Breivik and “anti-tyranny” gun lovers?
Good question.
I was wondring recently about the destructiveness of the culture because I know of no popular video games where the purpose is to test the gamers intelligence and creativity in order to prevent violence. Creating scenarios where potential violence is possible and the gamer has to decide on options that could either lead to escalation toward violence or toward defusing it. Increaing points and levels as the ability to prevent vioplence increased.
On a previous post of yours related to guns used as a deterrence I wanted to tell you about an incident I had in NY where two guys on the street got into an argument about traffic. One got out of his car and was trying to smack the guy in the car in front of him. He had his window down and they were yelling at each other. The front guy got out of his car and they both began acting like they were about to physically fight. Then the other guy went to his trunk and pulled out a tire iron and threatened to hit the front gy with it. I interposed myself and demanded that the guy put the tire iron away. I was firm and while a small person compared to him, was very clear that this was unnecesary. I felt confident that I could prevent myself from being injured if he DID decide to attack, but I ended up defusing the situation. IF he had had a gun however I never would have taken that chance, and it is possible that he would have shot the other man and possibly me. It is of course impossible to be sure, but I KNOW my intervention de-escalated the issue, and I ONLy had that ocnfidence because I have had training in interrupting destructive behavior. I am also quick to offer aid to people in accidents or other situations where I see most other people being uncomfortable and not watning to “interfere”. this is not some great character trait I posess, but something I have learned and value.
In order to become more “Sane” we need to make constructive engagement a desired trait, and move away from, “blow em away” solutions to conflict.
Tony: “…I know of no popular video games where the purpose is to test the gamers intelligence and creativity in order to prevent violence.”
Good point. I actually think the game you describe, where preventing or defusing violence garnered more points than violence would be a challenging game. Most of the people I know are non-violent peace-niks who, strangely enough, seem to enjoy games where killing your enemy is rampant. Go figure.
The thing about fantasy games is that they offer the player an opportunity to assume different character traits than what he normally exhibits. That’s fine as long as the violent traits remain a fantasy.
There is such a game. It’s called Portal 2 😉
Very good points, and I personally would love to see video games developed along the lines you mentioned. Just not sure how well they would sell, however — violence definitely does sell.
Its like you learn my thoughts! You seem to understand a lot approximately this, like you wrote the guide in it or something. I believe that you can do with a few % to power the message house a little bit, but other than that, that is wonderful blog. A fantastic read. I will certainly be back.
Many thanks.
I missed this when you posted it a week ago, but the bit about gun addicts definitely caught my eye. I have recently been thinking a lot about the actual addictive quality of guns. Alas, I think I may have already given away the conceit, but I just posted this on my own blog today:
http://tcantine.blogspot.com/2013/02/pyrobrachiate-abuse-and-how-to-stop-it.html
“Addictive quality of guns?” You are a delusional psychopath. Guns are a tool. You might as well talk about the “addictive quality of butter-knives.” Comparing the ownership of a tool used for defense to a chemical dependency shows your spiteful, and murderous hostility toward the American people. Go read John 8:44. That is about you. Then go read Obadiah 1:18. That is also the last word about you.
Claiming that guns are just tools is a specious argument. Guns are one of only four tools specifically designed and invented to kill**, and they are one of only two tools meant to kill people; no other tool fits this description. Guns were originally developed as weapons of war, and only much later were used for certain alternatives, such as hunting or “self-defense”. Guns cannot be used for anything else productive, and even their “alternative uses” are predicated on their ability to kill. Even as a deterrent, it is the threat of the gun as a killing instrument that makes it effective.
There are other methods of hunting and self-defense; we don’t need guns for that. We just need them to kill people.
** The four tools invented for killing are the spear, bow and arrow, sword/dagger, and gun, and of these only the sword/dagger and the gun were invented for war, to kill people. The other two were originally hunting implements adapted for war.
The addictive quality is not inherent in the item itself, but connected with its use. ANY item can become addictive if used the wrong way. People who use guns simply as tools or recreational accessories aren’t courting addiction. People who use them for their psychological effect, to be rid of their fear of crime, DO run the risk of dependency. I don’t have a problem with people having guns, liking guns, collecting guns. It gets dangerous and unhealthy when they think they NEEED guns, that they’ll die without them. And one of the signs of that kind of dependency is hostility to anyone who calls attention to it. So thanks for that.
Interesting post. I’ve always been perfectly comfortable with the classification of firearms as a drug. I grew up in the heart of the U.S. gun culture myself, and I’ve seen what an effect they can have on some people.
Trolling your own blog with psychobabble boilerplate is not strengthening your position. Who do you think you are fooling? I highly doubt you have any experience with guns. I also highly doubt you have ever faced life-threatening violence. I have faced imminent danger of violent death on several occasions. It gives one a whole new perspective.
I have personally taken several strong anti-gun advocates to the shooting range. They were raised on the vinegar of anti-gun, anti-self-defense, communist propaganda. After training them to shoot, they all agreed they wanted to train more with guns and get proficient with them. Fear and disdain of guns is sometimes due to an agenda, sometimes due to misunderstanding the inherent danger and violence of reality that no government can ever thwart. My students finally got it. Life is inherently dangerous, and no government can only change that–government can only encourage self-defense or prevent self-defense. The courts have already ruled that cops have no duty to protect citizens, and then anti-gun drivel says that cops will protect us when we are disarmed. What an obvious, pro-genocide scam!
I think you’ve misunderstood the role of the police, Ozark, and what it’s reasonable to expect from them. They absolutely DO have a legal duty to protect the public at large; they just don’t (and CAN’T) be legally obliged to protect an individual member of the public, because protecting the public will necessarily involve prioritizing of resources. If the police were liable for Charlie being attacked while they were busy protecting Dorothy, it would be impossible for them to avoid liability. Instead, they are charged with protecting the public generally, not individually.
Self-defense is not a positive right to attack people who attack you. It’s an ancient common-law defense against criminal charges of assault or murder. If someone attacks you, you can plead self-defense when charged with injuring or killing them, and defeat the charge. (An obvious case of self-defense usually means you won’t even be charged in the first place.) Governments have no interest in encouraging or discouraging self-defense, because it’s silly to expect someone facing imminent lethal attack to worry about whether or not it’s legal to defend themselves. They can (and probably should, as we do in Canada) discourage carrying weapons for the purpose of self-defense. After all, if you have enough warning to reasonably anticipate needing a weapon, you have enough warning to reasonable avoid the dangerous situation in the first place, and the use of violence in self-defense is meant to be a last resort.
Whenever I hear a Canadian make such reasonable observations as yours, Tom, I have to wonder what quirk of nature resulted in such a sane society as Canada existing in such close proximity to an asylum such as we have in the U.S.
There are crazies in Canada, too, you know. Fortunately we drafted our Charter of Rights with the benefit of having had a couple of hundred years watching how the U.S. Bill of Rights played out. The U.S. Constitution is a brilliant first-generation document, but it IS first generation. We put in s.1 of our Charter to allow for reasonable limits on charter rights, but they have to be REASONABLE and justified by a fairly strict judicial test.
Well there’s that, and then there’s just the difference in the contents of the water, apparently.
Waco. Ruby Ridge. Gordon Kahl. What they all have in common, besides being the sites of horrific massacres, is that the crimes were carried out by mentally disturbed cops and politicians. Whenever an unbalanced bureaucrat or politician wants to make a big statement to get the world’s attention, it seems that the gun-toting police officer is the instrument of choice to deliver the message of terror. And aside from being puerile roid-heads, the one thing that nearly all government-sanctioned mass murder snipers have in common is that they are mentally and/or emotionally disturbed and like murdering the citizens they claim to protect. But it’s not just the police and bureaucrats who display bats in the belfry; it’s also a large segment of the government-funded blogosphere in reacting to these bloodbaths with more venemous and calls for disarming the victims and demonizing those who want guns for self-defense against a mass-murdering government.
If you think the government agents were the ones who were mad — and who were breaking the law — then you have a problem that I can’t solve.
It’s not what I *think* POP, it’s the facts. Randy Weaver never broke any law. He was set up by the ATF who wanted to force him into slavery, i.e., to be an informant. He refused. The Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude. The ATF retaliated with trumped up charges over a shot gun 1/2 inch too short. The government murdered Randy Weaver’s family. Shot his son in the back with a machine gun, and shot his wife in the head while she was holding her baby with her breast in its mouth. These are the facts. They’re not open to dispute. Randy weaver was acquitted of the charges. The Federal prosecutor also charged Randy Weaver’s ten-month-old baby with accessory to murder, for making that government sniper shoot her in the head. An ATF team of cold-blooded murderers is still on the loose, ready to kill again. You are either delusional, evil, or a paid yellow propaganda hack to say premeditated murder is not breaking the law. Of course, you believe the garb of the state sanctifies the wearer, don’t you? You defend a government that charges a ten-month old baby with murder, after they just shot the baby’s mother in the head. The god of heaven curse you and rot your tongue out of your mouth, and break your fingers so you can write no more lies, unless, and until, you can repent of your hatred of babies and mothers.
History shows without exception that governments are corruptible and over time become tyrannical. Americans must accept this as truth or they will never have freedom and liberty. History also provides examples of peoples disarmed by their governments.
Gun control was implemented for ‘reasonable’ purposes in :
Ottoman Turkey, 1915-1917, results : 1.5 million Armenians murdered
Soviet Union, 1929-1945, results : 20+ million civilians murdered * the number has recently been updated to include up to 60 million
Nazi Germany 1933-1945, results: 20 million civilians murdered
Nationalist China, 1927-1949, results: 10 million civilians murdered
Red China, 1949-1976, results: 35 – 60 million civilians murdered
Guatemala 1960-1981, results 200,000 civilians murdered
Uganda 1971-1979, results: 300,000 civilians murdered
Cambodia 1975-1979, results: 2 million civilians murdered
Rwanda 1994 , results 800,000 Tutsi people murdered
In each of these cases, and there are others, the governments only asked for ‘reasonable and sensible’ restrictions on guns including:
Gun permits
Government list of owners
Ban on sales and ownership of certain weapons
Registration
Licensing
Bans on sharp tools
Photo ID with fingerprints
Surely these are just reasonable restrictions; after which the unreasonable genocide of targeted citizens who were rounded up and brutally murdered.
Full Article: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/mind-control-not-gun-control.html
Wow,
I am hoping that you don’t have any guns. this sounds very much like the type of thing I write that is so overthetop people realize i am spoofing fanatic gun owners.
You somehow forget tot mention the ban on gund in Japan, and the almost ban in England, and numerous other places that have storng regulations on guns where there have been no massacres.
It is the type of paranoia you display that makes it so necesary to have regulations on gun ownership and use. It is the fanatic and paranoid that gets himself in situations where he fully believes that he is justified in shooting someone, becuase he manufactures scenarios that fit his paranoid mindframe.
As we all know the majority of gun deatsh in this country come from two sources . Domestic disputes that escalate until someone gets so pissed off they decide the other person needs to die, and drug related crimes.
I live rin VT with some gun restrictions. the four murders we have had here in the last 1-2 years were a father shooting his sone girlffriend because he didn’t like how they treated him. A man shooting a neighbor who complained about his son’s crazy driving A woman kidnapped and executed by people she was involved with regarding drugs. A man upset about a bad performance review by his boss, who walekd into the store and shot him. NOT one case of police corruption or anyone trying to impose dictatorship. Not one case of a person defending their home from a criminal intruder. not one case of anything except screwed up people who had guns killling inniocent people becuase they thought they had a valid reason.
I certainly hope that most people will realize that the paranoid visions fo socialist muslom government prying guns from cold dead fingers in their gloabl plan to enslave the human race ar not reality.
In all the places you mention, there were many other factores that led to the massacres. the US has moved in those directions a little but, but we are no wehre near the point that you think is on our doorstep.
When you have no moral foundation for your arguments, you “psychoanalyze” your victim. Your hostility and bile are transparent to any thinker. Go piss up a rope.
America’s founding fathers also had a “paranoid vision” of an evil government bound to enslave them. And they sent the bastards back to England after putting thousands of them in the ground. There were plenty of Tory clowns back then, parroting the same tripe as you against the continental army and revolutionary factions that founded the greatest and freest nation in history–because they refused to lay down their arms.
Do not put words in my mouth or try to read my mind. You’re worthless at that kind of insight.
Ozark,
I have no hostility towrds you. I am just telling you my opinion as well as I understand it. I have a fairly clear moral foundation for my argument. In this case that foundation is that the majority of gun violence in this country is realted to domesticviolence from people who do not have an understanding of how to deal with conflict. that was the reality in all four cases I know of where people died from gun violence in my area over the last couple of years. the drug death is rather different.
It also comes from understanding the sources of tyrranical government, and seeing how political idealogues use propaganda to manipulate fanatics to beleive the kind of fantasy that you are writing here.
I am used to rightwing ideologues ignoring what I actually write and tryng to go off on irrelevant tangents, but you are a little different. I think you are either someone playing a joke, to see how rattled you can get these socialist loonies, becuase you expressed thoughts are so far out of any but the most racist fascist frame work. or you are actually able to be anonomous and can state your true feelings. Either way I hope we can help you here. At least I am willing to.
You should get your information from somewhere other than gun propaganda websites.
Take the Armenian genocide, for example. The Armenians were subjected to slaughters from 1894-1896 and in 1909 prior to what is known as the Armenian genocide. Estimates range between 100,000-300,000 dead as a result of these massacres. In gun zealot historiography, gun were not confiscated until the start of the war. This, of course, means that the guns were of little use to begin with had they not been able to avert these massacres. Secondly, genocide in the pretext of gun control ignores the events at Van in April of 1915, when the Armenians fended off a siege WITH arms.
Nazi Germany, of course, liberalized gun laws in 1938. This means that they did not view gun control as a necessity to carry out there deeds. Of course, Jews were restricted from gun ownership, but they were also restricted from owning businesses and were fully ghettoized by 1938.
No gun control legislation was present in the Soviet Union until 1929, BEFORE Stalin even came to power. Nevertheless, the presence of guns did nothing to stop the Soviets from taking control. In fact, the Soviets were GIVEN guns in preparation of Kronilov’s revolt, and that’s specifically why they were able to launch their coup d’état. By citing what happened in the Soviet Union, you actually make a better case for gun control because, as always, gun zealots act as if the Second Amendment gives them the right to commit treason–exactly what the fascists and Bolsheviks believed.
The one that I take the most issue with is Rwanda, though. The primary weapon used in the killings was the machete, which was an agricultural tool available to everyone. Where does gun control fit in? The main issue here is simply the banality of evil. Roughly 85% of the population was Hutu; roughly 15% was Tutsi. They were outnumbered.
You people always act as if gun control was the first domino leading to genocide. You ignore that these minorities were often first stripped of all their rights and segregated from society first. The presence of guns did nothing to stop that. And where guns were present, they were outnumbered and lost in almost every case because they racial minorities. The problem was not the lack of guns (these governments were tyrannical BEFORE any guns were allegedly taken, which in many cases they weren’t); the problem was the ideological nature of the regimes themselves and the absence of effective controls on power. If you want to say gun control leads to tyranny, you better first acknowledge that a country like Russia, had not constitution when the Bolsheviks came to power! Hitler suspended the constitution! If you’re worried about tyranny, make sure the President never gets the power to indefinitely detain people, torture people, or do something like suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus–things which actually correspond with tyranny. My my! The gun lobby’s silence was deafening on these matters.
Also, I notice the Bosnian genocide is conspicuously absent fro your list. Might it be because the presence of arms did not prevent it?
Africa for Africans.
Asia for the Asians.
Mexico for the Mexicans.
White countries for everybody!
When traitors force the immigration of hundreds of millions of non-whites into white countries, and only into white countries, while disarming the white population, that is a setup for making the whites a minority and then exterminating the whites, according to your own logic above.
Those who object to this genocide of white people, are called “racist” or a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
The pro-immigration crowd say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white.
Gun Control is anti-American, anti-Founding-Fathers, and thus against the Founding Race of our country.
Gun Control is Anti-American, Anti-Founding Fathers, and thus Anti-White.
Massive non-white immigration coupled with gun control that will disarm all the whites, is genocide.
GUN CONTROL IS ANTI-WHITE
http://whiteswillwinparty.wordpress.com/tag/gun-control-is-anti-white/
I’ll thank you not to speak of my motives. Pro-immigration is just that–pro-immigration. Your ancestors came to America and there is no real justifiable reason for preventing Africans, Asians, and Mexicans from joining them except racism, which is clearly your motive.
No, gun control is not anti-white (it was originally anti-black; just look a what Reagan did in California and why he did it) and it is not anti-founding fathers, whatever that is. They said “the people” not persons, had the right to keep and bear arms. This means it was a collective right, in the first place. And they were referring to muskets and flintlock pistols.
You should read this :http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract
It’s a scientific study showing how racist people (like yourself) are dumber than average. Of course, I’m sure you lack the capacity to understand it, and I’m sure you won’t believe it because science is the work of the devil, right? But I figured I would fill you in, knowing that it won’t matter or lead to any kind of constructive conversation.
You are calling me racist because you are is anti-white. Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white. You are arguing for a world without white people. And you are arguing for a white country to be disarmed, while being flooded with non-whites. How does calling me a racist justify blending my race out of existence through massive immigration of non-whites into all white countries, and only into white countries?
The U.S. Constitution was written to preserve a homeland for white men and their white posterity: “….to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY, we do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united states of America.”
Posterity is a word that means the issue of a particular race in their capacity to inherit land and property.
“We the People” means the white men who founded this union of states and the nation that inhabits it. The constitution clearly shows that non-whites are not part of “the people” because they are a foreign people to us. The emigration and naturalization act of 1802, which is still standing law, having never been repealed, states that only free white persons may become citizens of the united States. Every naturalization of a non-white is anti-white treason. It is genocide. Only whites are not allowed to have their own nation.
So are you arguing that the Constitution should read, “to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and all other races who can come here and dispossess our posterity ….?”
If I were to say we should move ten million African negroes into Japan and only into Japan, anyone could see I was not talking about immigration, but rather, the genocide of the Japanese people. Yet when traitors argue for the immigration of hundreds of millions of non-whites into white countries, and only into white countries, you call it “diversity” instead of genocide.
If you eliminate a race of people by destroying their culture and depriving them of their land, whether by using bombs or social engineering, it’s still genocide.
You say you are anti-racist. What you are is anti-white. Anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white.
I am white. I have been all of my live. I’m just not pro-stupid. When you say things like “racism means anti-white” you’re proving that you are racist because you’re emphasizing a fear as it relates to the color of your skin. You’re actually xenophobic–that’s a better word for you.
You’re afraid of people with dark skin. You’re so afraid that you have to carry a gun. You’re afraid of everything.
Immigration doesn’t bother me because I’m not afraid of black people or Mexicans. I’m not afraid that my nieces will marry someone who isn’t white–it matters not one way or the other. I’m just not afraid. I live in one of the most dangerous cities in America. I don’t carry a gun because I’m not a pussy.
And the “we the people” were white men; you’re right about that. We’ve since amended the Constitution to include blacks and women. Ignore that all you want. But please just stay in you bunker; watch your pornography; and prepare for world government!
What really gets me about the libertarian gun-rightist position is how much it sounds like Christian fundamentalism, complete with articles of faith and dire apocalyptic warnings. Just substitute unrestricted gun ownership, the 2nd Am, and the evil tyrannical government with God / Christ, the Bible / New Testament, and the Devil / Antichrist, and their claims and statements would be virtually identical. And many of these people claim to be atheists.
Simply want to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness in your submit is simply spectacular and i could think you are an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thank you a million and please continue the gratifying work.
I’m for civil rights to all. I’m a prior service Marine who has seen enough war to know I do not want to do it again. With that said I also do not believe that measures that would disarm groups of people because somehow we don’t like their religion, color, gender, speech will make us generally safer. What do I base this on is much closer to home Trail of Tears, Kent State, and many others. While rare and hopefully avoidable in the future, where do you draw the line?
Those who 10 years ago feared the “Drones of Death” over US skies and were called crazy don’t look quite as crazy with what is coming to a sky near you. I don’t think it is as dire as all that right now but what if DHS or some other part of the government started loading armaments on them? Is that to far? What if they fire on a bus load of “terrorists”? Does that make it ok to be firing weapons of real war on US soil? What if they, while fearing for their lives, start shooting at a newspaper delivery truck with 2 women in it?
While I am sorry for those on the pro gun rights side who come off as complete racist crazy people, there are many more of us that are anything but. While I disagree with much that I have seen in my short time on this space I appreciate the overall decorum that it has shown so far. Many of the anti-gun blogs/pages ect. are filled with “drag those gun totten rednecks out here and shoot them in the head” (ironic isn’t it) I have seen much of the same on the pro gun rights side and I try to bring them to task that spewing hate,insults or lies does no one in our country any good. I’m much more interested in ways to work on generally making the world a better place..
Semper Fi
Thanks for your input — and for your service to the country!
Thanks POP. Nice to not be banned from a thread for trying to simply participate in a discussion about something that I feel is of great importance. I think it is very easy for people to simply stay in the confines of those who think the same with no one to challenge them or their positions.
I prefer to take an honest assessment of differing opinions and see if I still feel the same way about mine and if so why. I’m married to someone who has a 180 degree opinion on this subject but we have come to the conclusion that we will never see it the same if for no other reason than perspective. I have been places, seen things and done things that I would NEVER want her to have to be around. For me this place is a way for me to get a little more of a glimpse of her perspective since the friction that comes from talking about much of this with her is not worth the stress for us.
Again I sincerely appreciate the welcome even though by viewpoint it different. I will strive to keep anything I do post here as civil and constructive as I can. While I’m no scholar on any one subject, I believe my heart is in the correct place.
Semper Fi,
Likewise Gene, I appreciate your tone and your interest in dialogue. I tend to base my responses too people on their level of civility (though i never resort to ad hominem or untruths).
I think it is crucial that people like you are willing to disagree with people who have similar beliefs toward yours when they are being extreme. As I think it important for those that believe in more regulation of guns to confront anti gun advocates when they profess things like confiscation. Both extremes just give ammunition to the extremes of the other side.
I too am concerned about government abuse of regulation. having served as a foreman of federal narcotics grand jury I have seen the systematic abuse, both structural and out of hubris of the law, mostly focused toward minorities.
I have no desire to take weapons away from anyone. My desire is to protect society from people who are not capable of being responsible with weapons. My postitions appear unlikely now, but I hope they gain support. I frankly do not see why gun ownership should be any less stringent that car ownership. Both are dangerous and can be fatal if misused or through unintended accidents. In my view all guns should be registered. All gun owners should have to go through licensing and training and all gun owners should have insurance.
Would this allow a tyrannical government the possibility of confiscation much more easily? yes, of course. But tyranny would be apparent long before such a situation occurred, as was the case in NAZI Germany, or Soviet Union.
But being as our society has accepted the registartion and licensing of cars, I do not understand how doing the same would in any way violate the 2nd amendment.
I have been through extensive background checks due to jobs I held while in the Marines. I’m not opposed to them but am cautious as to who gets to make the determination as to who is “Fit”. Much the way that concealed carry licences in some states are handed out. If your a politician, celebrity, wealthy or connected then no problem here is your licence there here you go. If not then “Prove to me” your not crazy, your trained, your insured, you don’t have kids in the house, your not taking care of an elderly person or any other reasonable at that time limit.
For the part of registering guns I’m not as keen on it but if some of the extreme anti gun will stop with the BAN this or that weapon because it is used in a TINY fraction of all crimes but some that are high profile and horrible, I would at least consider some form of that. The NFA system is exactly that but is a NIGHTMARE to maintain. Canada was also running that type of system and gave it up due to lack of any results as a crime prevention tool and the extreme costs.
Like I have mentioned I am far more interested in real results. A single shot weapon in the wrong persons hands is far to many let alone 30 rounds. But if someone even in the rare case is defending themselves or others then I hope they have every round that they need. Much the same way that police departments would NEVER go along with limiting the standard magazines for the officers, why should regular citizens be handicapped? I don’t have the figures in front of me but I have seen that accuracy for police use of a firearm is something between 8-20%. That means with a 10 round magazine you may have between 0-2 hits. (I’m well trained and my preferred weapon only carries 8 but that is me) Is that enough in most situations? Probably. But I don’t really like those odds.
I have to admit POP I would love to see or hear (or a link to your page about it) of what your thoughts on the decrease in violent crime rates over 20 years even while gun ownership has increased and many states made concealed carry more available. I’m just wondering because I think your view would be better thought out than some of the hysteria that I have seen posted on the gun control side claiming that all this extra access to guns has made us more violent.
Now for my side on this I would also love to see a little less of the “Obama” hysteria on the gun rights side of things. I would rather focus on funds to help the police do their jobs and get at least a little bit of mental health care for those that are showing themselves to be a real danger. These issues are important and will not be solved with either sides extreme views.
Gene, I’m going to be discussing gun control in the near future. Mind you, I don’t have an answer about how effective it is, and it appears nobody else does either. But what I want to examine is how statistics have been manipulated or misused. Many people, for instance, quote figures like those you mentioned as “proof” that gun control not only doesn’t work but is counterproductive. The long and short of it, however, is that correlation is not the same as causation. Or as sociologists sometimes say, “with” does not mean “because”.
My goodness gene, you do seem extremely reasonable.
I agre that WHO decides and how the decision is made regarding licensing is crucial. there is going to be some sort of corruption of any process based on politics, ideology and money no matter what.
And i agree with most people that the real issue is not the guns themselves but people misusing guns. I personally think that we do not teach people how to deal with emotions in conflict situations. My understadning is most gun violence involves some sort of domestic dispute or dspute among people that know each other over issues that should not involve life threatening responses. I live in Vt and in my town there was a spate of 4 murders in the last two years. Very unusual. One was drug prostitution related the ther three were crazy conflicts. A man had a bad performance review at our co-op and cem in one day and shot the manager. Another was a man who shot his son as he defended his girfriend from the father. Another was a man who shot someone that was compalining abut his son hoptrodding his car around the man’s house. All totally unnecesary, and all becuase society does not know how to teach people productive ways to deal with conflict.
I sincerely doubt that decrease in violent crime has much to do with increase weapons use. Crime has decreased in every urban area by huge amounts over the last 3 decades, and I know of no correlation. I would guess increased police prwesence and strategy for dealing with violent crimes. increased intolerance of violent crime in minority communities that suffered the worst from drug and other related crime. I imagine that the arguments about abortion are also a factor. And possibly the hugr increase in croime in the 60’s was some cultural abberation that smoothed out some.
I am unfamiliar with the registration issue you brought up – NFA. what was the nightmare and why do you think it was so. Is it soemthing intrinsic to the idea of registration or soemthing bad about the program or the implementation?
POP I 100% understand the lies, damn lies, and statistics. The same measures if barred from being used for one side should also be barred from the other. With the hysteria on the extreme gun control side you would swear that with every 2 new guns purchased 10 more people will die.
Given that at the heart of the entire gun control debate does revolve about a Right the burden of proof for anything that may limit it is on those proposing new limits. If there is no way to “prove” or even measure success this makes it tough. How am I going to support something that has no built in metrics for success? Or when the fears of the Pro 2A side that when this round of new laws does not accomplish the intended purpose (if that is even clearly articulated) that even more sweeping ones will not be next.
I do hope you will look at both sides of the argument and point out misuse by both.
Semper Fi
Hello POP,
Just a few minutes ago, as I was using Google to research information about the supposed 911 conspiracy, I ran across this website, which tells the story of a British Journalist who was once a dedicated advocate of the dire and evil conspiracy theory about 911 being perpetrated by an “insider group:”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10079244/The-911-conspiracy-theorist-who-changed-his-mind.html
What I noticed on this website was a link to the Piers Morgan interview with Alex Jones, who apparently supports several different conspiracy theories about several different contentious topics–this one being gun control.
What caught my attention is that I remembered the link you provide in this post to the same interview conducted by Piers, who interviewed Jones about his views concerning gun regulations. But, when I clicked on the link, I was taken to a blank screen, with the words, “This video does not exist.”
I find it strange that possibly the same people who routinely accuse the government of censoring unpopular information, apparently also consider this video portraying Jones in the midst of a lunatic rant, as also requiring removal?
I am assuming that someone, or some entity, that objected to images of a prominent conspiracy theorists like Jones, revealing how irrational he can be, were those who thought it should be removed. It wouldn’t make sense that anyone on the left, or anyone with any objectivity at all, would want it removed just because of this unflattering rant by Jones. If anything, those of us who debunk conspiracy theorists and who believe in the assessments given by debunkers like Popular Mechanics, or who believe in the analysis done by organisations like NIST, would prefer that it remain on the internet in order to cast doubt on the credibility and character of someone like Jones—since Jones is also a fanatical devotee of the theory that 911 was perpetrated, or deliberately ignored, by a complicit insider government group.
I thought you would like to know that the video you include in this article has apparently been censored on certain websites, and if you can provide any plausible reason why those who removed it can get away with such censorship?
Thanks for the heads-up. In my experience, however, a video’s “non-existence” may occur for a number of reasons (some mysterious to quasi-Luddites like myself) and may be temporary. Let’s see if it reappears.
POP,
I suppose some of it has to do with complaints made to websites and charges of unfair portrayals, etc. But whatever it is, your link still works and I assume the video of Jones and Morgan is still up on other sites as well.
POP,
To be more accurate, the story which contains the censored link, is about Charlie Veitch, who is described as formerly being one of the most dedicated subscribers to the supposed 911 conspiracy. I think he also is described as having a You Tube page.