"We have never stopped sin by passing laws; and in the same way, we are not going to take a great moral ideal and achieve it merely by law." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
RE: To Those Watching Piers Morgan
Column by Kevin M. Patten.
“The same persons who tell us one breath, that the power of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, unfortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it.” ~ Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #29
The massacres in Tuscan, Aurora, and Sandy Hook have left lingering feelings and perilous thoughts on the hearts and minds of many. Anger makes a few of them vibrate with rage. At someone? Hardly. Some-thing! And since it’s too difficult for people blinded by the loss of a loved one to understand “the bigger picture,” the question of what dominates over the whos and whys and then becomes a blind crusade for justice. Others, mainly in government, an opportunity for political – and yes, perhaps even genocidal – objectives to be fulfilled.
With extra zeal, the Network talking heads reminded the sheeple of this collective anger, steering it directly towards an agenda of disarmament. Of all the propagandists, CNN’s “centrist” and English-raised commentator, Piers Morgan, has been the most virulent of the bunch, demanding that the president and those in Congress begin extracting “military-style machines” from the homes of the American people. (If I attempted to make this essay melancholy, I would only have to estimate how many of Morgan’s 2,000 or so viewers were actually giving him due credence.)
Those marching in DC to Morgan’s drumbeat have incorrectly identified this issue as an emotional response rather than its correct designation as a moral dilemma left unanswered. Exactly: Who, or what, begets violence? For many of us looking with an anarchistic perspective (whatever your variety), it would be our nemesis in the State. Those analyzing a bit more might consider that everyone is susceptible to their own internal struggle between Yin & Yang, endlessly toiling with what is right and what is good as many of them navigate a monotonous routine of serving someone else.
A statement made by California Police Captain James touched upon other fundamentals: “A gun is not a defensive weapon. That is a myth . . . a gun is an offensive weapon, used to intimidate and to show power.” The captain does seem to be right! Guns do have a purpose of weaponry. Now then, I beseech every officer, ask yourself: Am I someone who upon witnessing another obliged by the same Oath, who is sure that that person violated the Oath by trampling on the rights of a citizen, not also violating at least the essence of that vow when refusing to denounce their odious behavior or even admit it in front of an audience?
I’ve recently become fascinated by the weekly compilations of this new but not unfamiliar totalitarian society, in which sworn officers, often embarrassingly, imitate the actions of school children by randomly tussling with people on the street. One should insist to inquire the class of citizens more frequently initiating the use of violence, and how they’re able to do it with near if not total immunity. Even more so, it’s likely that witnessing government abuses on a daily basis would assimilate the human mind into accepting trivial acts of rebellion as a practical norm, however more or less violent, that would naturally fuel a very costly class war which is hard to define with simple words and statistics.
Captain James had listed 55 fallen officers as of last year. A word came to mind. Paltry. The shame? Rudolph Rummel attempted to count the number of lives given over to what he called “Democide” – estimating to a total of some 262 million in the last hundred or so years killed by government, inside and outside of the US. What is today banally referred to as “police brutality” is often seen as the precursor to this 20th Century phenomenon.
This is why, with the small correction I take time to make (and expect you to pay attention to), I can remind all sworn upholders of the Constitution the sacrament of the Second Amendment, needful of capital letters and not to be used as an item bouncing back and forth between the walls of our fully-infected Congress and their lapdogs on CNN, MSNBC, and elsewhere.
Morgan, a seemingly more level-headed poodle, laid out his “national gun policy” in full on Twitter: “Absolutely” no more sales of assault weapons for civilians, period; mandatory safety and training courses for everyone, complete with references and 6-8 week verification; a complete ban for all convicted criminals and anyone with a “mental health disorder”; a hopeful ban on anyone under 25; and, most Orwellian of all, an extensive social media check so he can “know who they are.” Then he would introduce a huge buy-back program – because nobody needs more than one gun to protect their house, unless the enemies are either psychopathic goon squads or machine gun-toting robots.
Like most other neoliberal commentators – and even some neoconservative ones – Morgan’s observable framework for this entire debate lies on the use of mind control devices concealed inside of inanimate objects: motionless on a shelf or driveway somewhere, they secretly transmit violent images into the nearest person’s brain, compelling them to do horrible things with it. This parody advanced by Morgan stains again his already tarnished career, and is not a circular depiction of the issue.
Yes, the power immediately wielded by firearms and vehicles has made more than just a few people fantasize about the possibilities of turning a key or pulling a trigger. Though unlike the person who has wittingly consumed an exotic cocktail of alcohol and pharmaceuticals, guns and cars are not capable of movement on their own. Why in the first place has the seat been occupied or the weapon now prepared must be addressed before taking advice from some empty suit, void of integrity and who makes his living by insulting the intelligence of a population by refusing to discuss seriously the underlying reasons.
“What other purpose,” Morgan retorts about these assault weapons, “do they have other than mass slaughter?” Concededly, vehicles have a different purpose than firearms, and are essential in the everyday modern world. Their “targets” are your workplace, school, home, park – and the everyday commuter usually has no other objective than to “hit them” without causality. But is he really to ignore the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who get behind the wheel every single day with a different destination in mind? Many of them under distress, high off of perfectly legal pills, and some with very delusory – potentially suicidal – senses? In a vertiginously ironic interview with Dan Rather, Morgan said his main problem was that “too many Americans are crazy.” This statement should be contrasted with absent reportage of what Alex Jones exclaimed were “mass murder pills” – the subsidized toxins long known to have rotted the brains of these many deranged killers.
With guns, the targets are honest and definitive for individuals without nefarious intent: persons and groups who use weapons in an offensive manner (or animals, but we’ll save that for another time). Both Jesse Ventura and Larry Pratt explained these potentials to Morgan in plain English, but despite the efforts the original intention of the Second Amendment remains ignored by him; that as a counterbalance to the violent monopoly of the State’s power, the monarchistic variety resolutely disdained by all the founders. (Perhaps with Hamilton as the exception)
English royalty could command the populace to comply and assist with enforcement of their declarations, whatever they might have been, and along with the 3rd Amendment the framer’s idea was to prevent a federalized government from ever raising a permanent “standing army” out of the citizenry. Since family, community, and personal property were paramount, and guns were and have remained culturally prominent – and irritatingly loud – transparency of these freedom-loving syndicates were thought to be democratic, and a “well-regulated” localized militia that practiced and learnt respect for firearms would prevent a tyrannical State from ever having this exclusive power. This is especially important when considering that despite all efforts against the people, they themselves – primarily the executive branch’s domestic terrorist unit, Homeland Security – have been stockpiling massive amounts of ammunition for some time.
The late Christopher Hitchens had also journalized these same principles. The polemist extraordinaire had commented in his 1994 column for The Nation that “A favorite liberal sneer at the opponents of gun control is the suggestion that those who favor self-defense are fixated on the Old West” adding that, “The time might come when the people might have to muster against the state.” The insisted thesis shared by these advocates – the one adopted even by the Dali Lama – that a defensive weapon is the only option when confronted with an offensive weapon, has received rebuttals by Morgan suggesting that another “Shootout at the OK Corral” would be the final scene, and by a totally useless character named Jim Carrey who spits on the grave of an activist he can’t ever measure up to; both of whom must now endure Hitchen’s realizations almost 20 years on.
His piece back then reported that “In cases where armed and experienced civilians have intervened to challenge armed criminals, the likelihood of bystanders being hit has been several times less than in similar interventions by police.” Updated studies came in recently by way of Obama’s accidental pen stroke, with Mac Salvo reporting that, “National survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year . . . .”
Are there practical solutions to end gun violence immediately? Of course. As Lew Rockwell suggested with a cool sense of obviousness, start by removing your own children from those unfortunate others, while letting the unscrupulous “educators” and asinine parents who spoon feed them these psychotropic drugs know exactly why. If the aforementioned studies are to be given any merit, having your own weapon might be a good idea when gallivanting around the various sectors where many of these pharmaceutical zombies reside.
We arrive at last to the edge of a fairly large picture. Guns, unlike cars, are made with an intention of violence. Suppose then that the purpose of using them against the “elected” (yes, it requires quotations) government is insane and terroristic and warranting of further restrictive provisions. That old idea of the patriots having a right to water trees of liberty (future generations?) with the blood of tyrants long since having expired. Why then, as many have said, do we have to be continually lectured by – hypocrites! – taking residency in the White House, their clownish prolocutors on network television, and threateningly so by the commissars who teach in mainstream academia?
President Obama must have used the word “change” a dozen times when addressing Newtown. “We can’t allow this to be a routine,” Obama said in a condescending, parental tone. “We must” – he said for a nauseatingly umpteenth time – change. Translation: Tolerate the executive orders he planned on signing in the coming months, as Mr. Soetoro repeatedly makes very clear to the American people both with pen signatures and with threats of them. As everyone knows, regulations are not applicable to the State. Prohibitions of any degree would thereby only affect citizens who haven’t committed any crimes, and not to those who with mafia-style precision can orchestrate them while eating breakfast.
Ice T sums up the matter, stating that guns should be given up when everybody gives them up. Since local and federalized governments are always the ones with the guns pointed, they should be the ones to begin lowering them. This would obviously first include the immediate resignation of our royal leaders, most of whom profit handsomely from a vastly overstretched Corporate Military/Intelligence/Media/Pharmaceutical/Prison Empire, not also to forget their bodyguards, who with only presence remind them daily of why the Amendment is there in the first place.