- "If the polls can be believed, 35 percent of American
adults are in a condition of silent rage at a system manipulated by a virtual
politics in a virtual reality to the point where they feel disenfranchised
and excluded in an atmosphere of imposed increasing social madness."
- Few national struggles create as much fear and animosity
as gun control. And few national struggles are driven by as much fear and
animosity as gun control.
- Is there reason to control guns because "guns kill
people"? Fifty years ago there were few prohibitive gun laws in the
United States. Rifles and shotguns could easily be purchased over the phone
from magazine ads in many of the hunting and firearms magazines. I lived
in a Midwestern city that had one of the largest small arms dealers in
the country, if not the world. They conducted their business over the phone
and through the mail from magazine ads. In some ads at other dealers, 20mm
antitank rifles were available.
- Yet, with the exception of the fantasies in old James
Cagney gangster movies, in the 40s and 50s the streets of America were
safe beyond anything remotely imaginable today. Millions of veterans had
returned from the war with millions of military weapon souvenirs. America
was swarming with rifles and pistols, and the crime rate was low. Even
in 1962 when I was in the army near Washington, D.C., later to become the
murder capital of the world, one could take a nap on a park bench with
no fear of being bothered.
- As is well known, the unofficial Swiss national motto
is, "A rifle behind every door." A principle Swiss national sport
is rifle shooting. Their military keeps their small arms at home and usually
keeps their arms after retirement. The crime rate is minuscule.
- The Israeli military keep their arms at home. Their violent
crime rate is minuscule.
- In a number of states in America gun ownership is nearly
unrestricted, nearly universally common, and the carrying of open or concealed
firearms is nearly unrestricted. The crime rates are low.
- Small arms are not dangerous in Israel. Small arms are
not dangerous in Switzerland. For most of its history, small arms were
not dangerous in America. In portions of America they are still common,
but still not employed in violence or other criminal acts. Virtually any
scientific analysis indicates public ownership of small arms correlates
with lower violent crime rate in a civilized industrial society. From a
correlative basis any serious study shows that a shotgun, pistol, or rifle
in every home would not be a societal threat, but would more probably be
expected to result in crime reduction. Indeed, the recent study by Dr.
John Lott Jr., examining the most extensive collection of information known
over a nearly two-decade period, argues this to be true, although his conclusions
have been subjected to shrill denunciations in a wide-spread liberal panic
attack. Why the denunciations and panic?
- If a low incidence of violent crime can, and has, occurred
coincident with the widespread ownership of an abundance of small arms,
then the incidence of violent crime is not a function of guns, but of something
- If small arms in the possession of the public were a
potential remedy to a serious violent crime problem in the United States
and the purpose were to provide that remedy, then one would believe they
would be welcomed rather than fought. The presence of small arms is not
fought for purposes of controlling crime and violence, but for other reasons.
There is a cultural and political axis in American society looking for
any excuse, and manufacturing excuses, to prohibit guns of any kind from
being kept in the hands of the people.
- Violent Crime in America
- The roaring 20s saw a dramatic rise in homicides in America
due to the conflicts between rival individuals and small gangs. Flamboyant
rogues such as Al Capone vied for power and reputation during a period
when the smuggling of a good grade of whiskey into the country was a welcomed
service. This was ended by three factors. Frist, the repeal of prohibition
ended the source of funding and glamor for the rogue glory days. Second,
Elliot Ness type federal agents moved in to pressure the mobsters. Third,
the ascendancy of the Costello-Luciano-Lansky organizing capacity evolved
in the underworld after which the rogues became outlawed within the underworld
and crime became organized and more benign.
- Indeed, some of the top mobsters, many of whom remained
unknown, were somewhat puritanical in values and personal habits. Frank
Costello, the "Chairman of the Board," in the underworld had
a gruff voice because of a throat operation, but was a rather quiet, decent,
and intelligent man who made his money in silent partnership with Governor
Huey Long in illegal slot machines. As he said, "I don't kill people,
I buy people." He, and the top echelon of the organization bought
people. People in high places looking for illegal sources of large sums
of money or power also bought the organizational capacity of that echelon.
Hence, for example, John Kennedy sent $250,000 bags of money to the mob
to help throw the presidential election. Violence was bad for business.
So during the 30s, underworld violence diminished accordingly except for
occasional slight internal conflicts that went largely unknown to the outside
- The gang violence of the 20s was predominantly purposeful
and well directed. While it produced spectacular headlines, members of
the general public were spectators, not threatened participants. The average
person was unaffected. By 1940, open gang violence was an anachronism.
- In the halcyon 50s, the homicide rate, in fact the rate
for all crime, was consistently the lowest since about 1905, before which
records are probably somewhat unreliable. Yet, America was awash in personal
small arms which could be purchased without serious restriction.
- During the mid 60s the homicide level began to increase
astronomically. It more than doubled between 1965 and 1975.
- At this point it's important to understand the realities
of the entire spectrum of the period and what should be talked about when
there is discussion of violence in America. In media descriptions there
is focus on homicide followed by quick focus on guns, handguns, so-called
Saturday-night specials, and assault rifles. There is also an attempt to
relate the homicide rate to turf wars by drug gangs--and an attempt to
frame the center of dialogue upon incidences such as the two high school
brats who recently killed classmates in Columbine, Colorado. This is little
more than fiction or distortion employed by anti-gun advocates.
- The sensationalized accounts in newspapers or on TV,
or as portrayed by anti-gun advocates, bear little or no resemblance or
relevance to the realities of crime or what Americans have to face.
- According to U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics for 1998, http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm, "Victimizations
involving a firearm represented 23 percent of the 2.9 million violent crimes
of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault." That
means over 2,200,000 people in America were raped, robbed, or just beaten
half to pieces without the use of a firearm of any kind. The 2,200,000
without the use of firearms is the realistic daily reality people face.
That is the real profile and threat of violent crime in America, not media
hype describing one or two kooks that go nuts. Until recently, in years
such as 1985, a person killed in a homicide had half as much statistical
chance of being killed with a knife as with a handgun-- and 1,000 people
were clubbed to death. In recent years handguns have become a completely
arbitrarily convenience employed in homicides, but are not by any stretch
of healthy imagination a critical factor in commission of homicides or
any other violent crime. For millions of people who are victims of violent
crime each year, it's absolutely clear that complete banning of all guns
in America will have little or no effect upon their becoming victims other
than depriving them of any means to protect themselves, and criminals will
be assured of it.
- Nevertheless, a distraught columnist hysterically advocating
absolute gun banishment writes, "So far 59 people (as of late September
of 1999) have been gunned down this year in schools, synagogues, offices
and now, a church. Dozens more have been injured, including victims left
wheelchair-bound for life."
- In the adult real world, in a nation with 275,000,000
people, if one person in ten million has some sort of psychotic break --
and 100 people are killed each year as a consequence -- it is simply an
unpleasant fact of life inherent in an imperfect human psychological world.
There have been, and will always be, a few such people and they will choose
another method if a particular one is not available or not to their liking.
(There was the Boston strangler. Ted Bundy killed in the order of 100 women
without use of a firearm. I know of a woman who uses her car as a weapon
in random attacks upon other people driving on streets and freeways.)
- While such people and acts of rarity such as the Columbine
incident can be sensationalized and used for generation of anti-gun hysteria
and ideological profiteering, they are neither a quantitative or qualitative
representation of violence or crime in America, nor illustrate a problem
with the availability of small arms. Indeed, such incidences, although
tragic to the people involved, are not a serious statistical threat, and
they result in far fewer deaths than falling off stepladders or choking
on food. To seize upon, or magnify the significance of, the actions or
methods of 10 or 15 erratics using guns per year in a country of 275,000,000
people is an exercise in demogogery. From a statistical point of view,
such rare incidences are a reasonable expectation on all counts (12,000
people in America die each year from falls, often in the home; 4,700 die
from suffocation, about half from ingestion; in the real world, there is
as much chance of being struck by lightening as becoming a victim in the
situations the columnist is using as leverage in wild attempts to generate
- Violence Without Firearms
- What is beyond permissible statistical incidence, and
beyond any reasonable dismissal as being practically insignificant, is
the far more grim reality that (according to the published DOJ figure)
more than 6,200 people a day are raped, beaten, maimed -- or violently
robbed, and killed -- in violence committed without firearms and from which
victims are without possibility of police protection and have no way of
defending themselves. But the politically correct demonstrate their cleverness,
and indulge their streak of sadism, by diverting attention away from this
reality in order to focus primary attention on the actions of 10 or 20
psychotics a year. If there is serious reason for intimidation on the streets
of America, the 6,200 figure is the stark reality. However, an attempt
has been made to transfer the realistic fear from this area into a statistically
irrational fear of .0001 percent of the population, and a hysteria against
firearms that leaves victims helpless and defenseless against the real
threat -- one which is not even acknowledged.
- The mid 60s saw an explosion of violence in America correlating
with numbers of homicides that more than doubled between 1965 and 1975
and have remained more than twice as high as the predominant level seen
in the 50s since that period. Close to 50 percent of murders during that
period did not involve use of handguns. To some extent the homicide rate
is deceptive as a measure of violence because medical procedures and means
of transport have improved -- resulting in substantially fewer deaths.
If medical science and equipment were at the same levels as in the 20s,
the number of deaths would have been much greater.
- But homicides and guns were the least of problem. Virtually
all kinds of violence and destructiveness increased equal to or beyond
the homicide rate. Here is an extract from Department of Justice figures
- No. 335. Crimes and Crime Rates, by Type
- [Data refer to offenses known to the police. Rates are
based on Bureau of the Census estimated resident population as of July
1, except 1980 and 1990, enumerated as of April 1. Annual totals for years
prior to 1984 were adjusted in 1984 and may not be consistent with those
in prior editions. See source for details.
VIOLENT CRIME ---------------------------------------------------------------
Forcible Aggravated Total Murder \1 rape Robbery assault -----------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR Number of offenses (1,000's):
- 1960 288 9.1 17.2 108 154 1961 289 8.7 17.2 107 157 1962
302 8.5 17.6 111 165 1963 317 8.6 17.7 116 174 1964 364 9.4 21.4 130 203
1965 387 10.0 23.4 139 215 1966 430 11.0 25.8 158 235 1967 500 12.2 27.6
203 257 1968 595 13.8 31.7 263 287 1969 662 14.8 37.2 299 311 1970 739
16.0 38.0 350 335 1971 817 17.8 42.3 388 369 1972 835 18.7 46.9 376 393
1973 876 19.6 51.4 384 421 1974 975 20.7 55.4 442 456 1975 1,040 20.5 56.1
471 493 1976 1,004 18.8 57.1 428 501 1977 1,030 19.1 63.5 413 534 1978
1,086 19.6 67.6 427 571 1979 1,208 21.5 76.4 481 629 1980 1,345 23.0 83.0
566 673 1981 1,362 22.5 82.5 593 664 1982 1,322 21.0 78.8 553 669 1983
1,258 19.3 78.9 507 653 1984 1,273 19.0 84.2 485 685 1985 1,329 19.0 88.7
498 723 1986 1,489 20.6 91.5 543 834 1987 1,484 20.1 91.1 518 855 1988
1,566 20.7 92.5 543 910 1989 1,646 21.5 94.5 578 952 1990 1,820 23.4 102.6
639 1,055 1991 1,912 24.7 106.6 688 1,093 1992 1,932 23.8 109.1 672 1,127
1993 1,926 24.5 106.0 660 1,136 1994 1,858 23.3 102.2 619 1,113 1995 1,799
21.6 97.5 581 1,099 1996 1,682 19.7 95.8 537 1,030
- Rate per 100,000 population:
- Forcible Aggravated Total Murder \1 rape Robbery assault
- 1955 4.1 (from other government source) 1960 160.9 5.1
9.6 60.1 86.1 1961 158.1 4.8 9.4 58.3 85.7 1962 162.3 4.6 9.4 59.7 88.6
1963 168.2 4.6 9.4 61.8 92.4 1964 190.6 4.9 11.2 68.2 106.2 1965 200.2
5.1 12.1 71.7 111.3 1966 220.0 5.6 13.2 80.8 120.3 1967 253.2 6.2 14.0
102.8 130.2 1968 298.4 6.9 15.9 131.8 143.8 1969 328.7 7.3 18.5 148.4 154.5
1970 363.5 7.9 18.7 172.1 164.8 1971 396.0 8.6 20.5 188.0 178.8 1972 401.0
9.0 22.5 180.7 188.8 1973 417.4 9.4 24.5 183.1 200.5 1974 461.1 9.8 26.2
209.3 215.8 1975 487.8 9.6 26.3 220.8 231.1 1976 467.8 8.8 26.6 199.3 233.2
1977 475.9 8.8 29.4 190.7 240.0 1978 497.8 9.0 31.0 195.8 262.1 1979 548.9
9.7 34.7 218.4 286.0 1980 596.6 10.2 36.8 251.1 298.5 1981 594.3 9.8 36.0
258.7 289.7 1982 571.1 9.1 34.0 238.9 289.2 1983 537.7 8.3 33.7 216.5 279.2
1984 539.2 7.9 35.7 205.4 290.2 1985 556.6 7.9 37.1 208.5 302.9 1986 617.7
8.6 37.9 225.1 346.1 1987 609.7 8.3 37.4 212.7 351.3 1988 637.2 8.4 37.6
220.9 370.2 1989 663.7 8.7 38.1 233.0 383.4 1990 731.8 9.4 41.2 257.0 424.1
1991 758.1 9.8 42.3 272.7 433.3 1992 757.5 9.3 42.8 263.6 441.8 1993 746.8
9.5 41.1 255.9 440.3 1994 714.0 9.0 39.3 237.7 428.0 1995 684.6 8.2 37.1
220.9 418.3 1996 634.1 7.4 36.1 202.4 388.2
\1 Includes nonnegligent manslaughter.
- Source: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in
the United States, annual: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucreports.htm.
- Typically 12-13 percent of rapes, robberies, and assaults
involve guns while 10-11 percent involve knives.
- The Great Crime Jump
- Beginning in about 1965 there was a sudden astronomical
increase in the entire spectrum of violent crime in which guns played a
marginal role. By 1970, a sane law-abiding environment in America was a
thing of the past. By 1975 America had plunged into violent madness which
eventually resulted in violent crime numbers six times that seen in the
early 60s and which in spite of recent minor decreases continues into the
present at rates that would have been considered science fiction in the
50s. Most of it did not involve firearms. Of interest are rape statistics
which are not gang or economically motivated, and seldom involve guns.
- Why did homicide increase 100 percent in a 10-year period?
Homicide increased for the same reason other violent criminality increased
by more than the same amount. Basically, American society and institutions
were becoming characterized by serious absence of conscience, discipline,
rationality, or consideration of other people. That absence could get you
killed, raped, robbed, or beaten without reason or conscience and with
increasingly less concern for expectation of, including argued demand against,
serious consequences of actions to be experienced by offenders -- and with
increasingly less opposition either from victims or institutions supposedly
protecting victims. Conscience, morality, discipline, rationality, or consideration
of other people were being declared, or viewed as, arbitrary impositions
or trivialities in America -- with predictably destructive consequences.
- The consequences were seen not only in casually-committed
violence, but throughout the entire spectrum of personal and public American
life. It affected the illegitimacy rate, the divorce rate, the level of
sexually transmitted diseases, levels of drug addiction, attitudes toward
education, personal work habits, and virtually everything else.
- Under an assault by the political and lifestyle left,
conscience, morality, discipline, rationality, and consideration of other
people were being declared, or viewed as, arbitrary impositions, obsolete
anachronisms, or trivialities in America. Within this environment there
were, and still are, no longer sufficient serious cultural or personal
limits to behavior of any type including, coincidentally, widespread violence
on the streets. Respect and inhibition by conscience was replaced by a
mentality of infantile rebellion, lately seen to have worked its way into
the White House.
- Many of the people who complain about irrational violence
and handguns also seem to be people who tolerate or advocate the cultural
climate of irrationality and mindlessness that fundamentally produce it.
To some extent this may be the result of intellectual deficiency. To great
extent these are people who practice irrationality and mindlessness in
their own values-free personal lives and seek to create and impose a society
of such mentality. To greater extent they seem to be playing a sadistic
game which they think is cute and in which they are determined to perpetuate
the cause while simultaneously inflicting irrational totalitarian and destructive
cures as part of the oppositional-defiant sadistic game of entrapment characteristic
of modern liberalism.
- Contemporary liberalism is a proponent of values-free
education and values-free or values-neutral everything else. When the predictable
result is conscienceless disturbed personalities who engage in values-free
or values-neutral killing, liberals mock stammering critics objecting to
the process by claiming the problem is with handguns and assault rifles.
In fact, the liberal controlled, approved, and engineered social and educational
environment produces carefully prepared deficient, disturbed, confused,
and often-angry personalities that are extended destructive alter-egos
of the people producing them and who act out accordingly throughout the
broad spectrum of their lives, and specifically as violent agents leveraging
liberalism--in an atmosphere of cute denial.
- The two arrogant spoiled brats who killed their classmates
in the Columbine, Colorado incident had long been defiant walking advertisements
for their attitude and intentions in a local and national psychotically
permissive social environment. Everyone in the school had been absorbing
their escalating levels of arrogant guff for far too long. There were no
surprises involved. They had been skirting the line and pushing the limits
for some period in a national atmosphere where setting them straight was
a prohibited politically incorrect imposition upon their right to self-expression.
In the weeks succeeding the killings, more brats in other schools began
wearing the same clothing and other paraphernalia to become a center of
attention and importance and push the limits in taunting the sane world,
and were allowed to do it without intervention.
- The pampered processed self-expressionists will kill
you, or each other. Liberalism will knowingly provide the corrupt or values-free
environment to encourage or enable them to do it. Co-conspirators in determined
social destruction in the ACLU will bring suit to protect them while they
are preparing and advertising they are going to do it. Leftist journalists
on TV and throughout the media will label people as being right-wing kooks
when they recognize the obvious and view the situation with alarm. At the
last second when the one of products of the process arbitrarily picks up
a firearm to complete the mission of madness, liberal commentators barely
suppress a smirk of superiority and triumph while claiming the firearm
is the problem or accuse you of being the problem. In the majority of instances
where firearms are not used, nothing's a problem, it's not reported, and
it doesn't exist.
- A parallel process has underwritten teen pregnancy, destruction
of the educational system, venereal disease, and most of the other so-called
social problems in the country--although firearms don't become an issue
in these instances.
- Through a process of pathological evolution, it has gone
on so long and has become so reflexively habitual that some of the people
engineering it have forgotten what they are doing or why they are doing
it and believe their original denial. The fundamentals have been lost on
focus on the secondary contest of hatred between those doing promoting
the process, and those who are alarmed, angry, and trying to resist the
- But make no mistake about it. In an act of exquisite
sadism and destructiveness, contemporary liberalism has knowingly and systematically
produced impulse-controlled, rationality-free, values-free walking time
bombs. When these bombs go off, the people who produced them secretly laugh,
then blame guns if the arbitrary choice of weapon is a firearm. It's part
of a pathological game.
- Another serious aspect of the problem which is a forbidden
subject is the rate of out of wedlock childbearing and the no-parent family.
At times in the last 30 years the rate of out-of wedlock births has approached
1/3 of all births.
- Statistical Rolodex - Births to Unmarried Mothers
- Out-of-Wedlock Births (most recent figures for U.S.)
- Number of Live Births to unmarried women: 1,257,444 (1997)
Birth Rate for unmarried women: 44.0 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged
15-44 years. Percent of all births occurring to unmarried women: 32.4 percent.
- Source: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol 47, No.
- Reports on Birth Rates of Black Americans 1996
- 1970 1996 Black children born to married couples | 357,262
| 179,568 | | | | Black children born out of wedlock | 215,100 | 415,213
- An overall national level has seen from 40 to 70 percent
of black children born out of wedlock in the last 30 years. In localized
demographic areas 80 percent or more of black children are born out of
wedlock to young girls. There are 16 year-olds with 13 year-old mentalities
raising children while continuing in an immature life style. The children
can not reasonably be expected to acquire any greater degree of maturity,
morality, discipline, or seriousness than the people raising and passing
their values on to them. There are 15 year-old mothers, 32 year-old grandmothers,
and great grandmothers in their 40s, all continuing the same mentality
of the immature 15 year-olds that raised them. We are moving into the fourth
generation of black "families," and even entire demographic areas,
that have not had, and continue to be without, serious mature adult influence
in their lives. The condition perpetuates and compounds itself in successive
generations, resulting in a spiral of steadily diminishing maturity or
sense of responsibility to the point where any civilizing influence is
but a distant memory in the minds of a few old people cowering in hiding
- The impulsive and irresponsible products of this hedonistic
swill of immaturity blithely kill each other for the most trivial of reasons
including for possession of tennis shoes or jackets. They use stolen guns
on some occasions, or in other cases whatever weapons or capacities they
have available. The NAACP, that is both a product of, and is protective
of, that culture, and is committed to defending it through omission of
criticism, has decided that the solution to the problem is to blame gun
manufactures and sue them. That will accomplish the desired goal of avoiding
any discomforting serious introspection within the culture while bringing
in some easy money to continue the insanity.
- In the case of the white community we have parents who
have convinced themselves that children don't need the kind of serious
supervision or discipline that would inconvenience parents while they play
at life. In the case of the Columbine shooting, it should be asked what
the parents were doing and why they didn't intervene when their kids, becoming
progressively resentful of the demands of real life and escaping those
demands by substituting strutting attention-getting membership in a clique
of counterculturally important psychotics and losers, were obviously orbiting
beyond the outer limits of sanity. One of the kids was given a BMW instead
- Gun Prohibition
- Groups or reasons promoting gun prohibition:
- The grief-motivated
- There are some people who those who vehemently assert
absolute banning of guns as a result of personal loss. In the case of Sarah
Brady, one might understand her opposition to gun ownership as a result
of the maiming of her husband.
- The Stop-the-Worlders and Hysterics
- There is a sincere stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off mentality.
Some inhabitants of that mentality are overwhelmed, confused, and crippled
in their understanding of nearly anything, and are grasping at what little
they can in muddled desperation. They live in an internal world approaching
generalized panic attacks in fear of life in general and almost desperately
seek a blandness they can handle. In recent decades major portions of the
American population have existed in a condition of panic or near-panic
as they displace the anxiety over potential realization of the condition
of dysfunctional personal lives and other problems into agoraphobia, bulemia
and other eating disorders, or whatever, and now anti-gun hysteria disorder.
- Americans were once self-confidently independent self-reliant
mentalities. As a predominant American characteristic, that died out with
the demographic and cultural descendency of the last of the great generations
of Americans born in the early 1900s. In the last four decades Americans
have become highly suggestible conformists who fear what they are told
to fear, and accept what they are told to accept. They have been conditioned
to live in absolute fear of even minor social criticism -- reality doesn't
control their thinking, social fear does. In their lack of confidence and
softness they need the entire world as a psychological support group. If
someone in a TV studio 1,000 miles away representing what is presented
as the cultural consensus stamps his foot, many Americans move to get on
the latest wave of hysteria portrayed in a virtual reality that is kept
uncontested by any other allowed presentation, even though what is being
said is an obvious lie or completely irrational.
- The American population has become a collection of programmed
hysterical unthinking herds. They are being programmed to believe guns
are somehow the problem while they are being diverted from examining reality
and the real problem.
- When we go beyond these two groups we enter into a polarized
world. It is a world of deep division polarized on everything along social
and political lines. Much of that division occurs along the complete array
of liberalism determined to impose itself and demand enforced compliance
to its agenda throughout society, versus its antithesis determined to resist
that imposition. Essentially, the ultimate purpose of gun control is to
render people incapable of the ultimate form of protest and resistance
to that imposition. Both sides know it.
- Practicing Sadists
- Many gun control advocates are sadists who practice indirect
or psychological violence or aggression, but want to immobilize physical
retribution. They want a passified world of bland immobilized victims where
sadism can not be contested.
- One of the subtle forms of sadism is to impose a humiliating
and controlling conformity. The form is a little like the character of
Nurse Rached at the mental hospital in the movie One Flew Over the Coo
Coo's Nest. She ran therapy groups that kept her patients in a chronic
state of subtle controlling humiliation and repression. She finally sentenced
the one man in her therapy group who showed any independent spontaneous
liveliness to a crippling surgical lobotomy to prevent him from questioning
or escaping her stifling sadistic control. In the same way, sadistic liberalism
seeks to impose an intrusional condition of humbling outside review and
submission to declared conformity into people's lives.
- The sadists know guns present no real problem. They like
to maneuver people into helplessness and laugh while watching people dance
at the end of a rope. They enjoy seeing people helplessly victimized by
real crime statistics.
- Gun Politics
- In about 1996 there was a discussion in one of the national
news magazines about the majority of the population in 10 or more western
states being in a state of near-revolt toward the federal government.
- One of the methods of preventing the growth or power
of a movement is to not report its existence or report it from a view of
subtle ridicule. Centralized news reporting has the capacity to confer
an aura of credibility and legitimacy through emphasis or tone in reporting,
or to deny credibility or even existence through deemphasis or manipulation
of tone in reporting. Journalism has the ability to create a sense of isolation
within a political or social movement, or to create a sense from the outside
that a sociopolitical movement is an isolated aberration relative to the
culture. On the other hand, journalism can magnify the sense of spirit
and momentum of a movement.
- Journalism can make or break a sociopolitical movement.
There is a certain narcissistic exercise in display of self-importance
which tempts the profession to do so, to the point of creating and maintaining
- Journalism, particularly since the advent of television,
if centrally unified and controlled in content, is the most powerful social
engineering force in the world that is capable of creating and exploiting
the mentality of the people. Most utopian and other governmental theorists
are keenly aware of it and intrigued by it. In America, editorial content
is fiercely independent of government censorship.
- The classical concern has been that government not control
the press. With the advent of a highly centralized technological communications
system in the last 50 years in the form of TV -- where virtual reality
can be synthesized under the guidance of a small group of people and the
public is channelized into receipt of that medium -- censorship, even the
censorship of a society, acquires a new meaning. What has not been considered
realistically is the almost Orwellian science fiction conception that journalism
might somehow become its own unified de facto political machine and become
the manipulating governing body that in turn creates the formal legal government
as well as a manipulated social environment.
- The question is, does such a unified body exist? In answer:
approximately 89 percent of the Washington press corps voted for George
McGovern in 1972 and an almost identical number voted for the Clintons.
The views of a George McGovern, who at times espoused a fanatically dishonest
and distorted view of the world, required a distorted, even dysfunctional,
and highly committed mentality on the part of those who could believe and
support him. The content of TV lies and distortions night after night as
dedicated expression of that mentality are presented with no possible confrontation
from viewers. In accordance with this is a disinclination to present alternative,
healthy views, that are perceived within the journalistic profession as
utterances from right wing kooks, in any light that other than that which
is undermining and as being representative of an isolated small minority.
Interpretations such as appear in this series are made nonexistent by their
omission from any portrayal or reference in media that has a distorted
enough frame of reference and commitment to even tolerate McGovern support.
- There are media-declared non-people and non-views in
American society that somehow never find representation to seriously disturb
the complacency of the spectrum of values and mentality that would support
a George McGovern or the Clintons. Under the circumstances, one should
suspect this comfortable absence to be less than impossibly mysterious.
- Thus, in the 60s the civil rights movement and the so-called
anti-war movement as well any other left-wing movement was reported in
a way that created a prophetic sense of growing inevitability of coming
as well as functioning to achieve a degree of coordination that the participants
could not have achieved with a billion dollars in advertising.
- Let's have a moment of realism. During the so-called
Paula Jones-Monica Lewinsky affair, in which Clinton contemptuously lied
to the American people, to judicial proceedings, and so forth, polls showed
a consistent 35 percent rock-hard strong disapproval rating for the Clintons.
While there was initially a stated much greater proportion of the population
registering strong disapproval if the magnitude of the allegations and
the deliberate insult to the American people turned out to be true, many
such people were gradually worn down into resignation by the Clintons'
tactics. The intensity of the hatred of the Clintons in particular and
the political left in general within that 35 percent of the population
was of a strength that could not be worn down and can not be overestimated.
- The Clintons won the last election with the votes from
about 24 percent of the American adult population in the lowest turnout
since the 20s. Most of that 24 percent represents the extreme hard political
left in America. That's enough to take the presidency against 76 percent
of the population in a country where a majority of people became so disgusted
with the political process that they declined to participate or vote.
- Silent Rage
- If the polls can be believed, 35 percent of American
adults are in a condition of silent rage at a system manipulated by a virtual
politics in a virtual reality to the point where they feel disenfranchised
and excluded in an atmosphere of imposed increasing social madness. They
are characterized by statistical consistent cluster in which they hate
what they consider to be a degenerate leftist/counterculture-infiltrated
educational system. They are ready to explode over law suits ruling they
must install gay scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts in spite of the fact there
have been several recent incidences where such leaders sexually abused
boys under their leadership. They hate a political system which increasingly
assumes the premise that they are now assumed to be possessions of a state
where the individual increasingly exists only for totally conformist servitude
to a voraciously controlling and demanding social group whose members sublimate
and displace the frustrations resulting from their own conformity upon
their neighbors in the form of an authoritarian sadism upon the individual
rather than at the entire powerful system. They are furious over media
virtual-representation by prearranged assigned voices 1,000 miles away
who supposedly speak for them and are the only ones recognized. They do
not want an imposed authoritarian liberal social agenda They are desperately
and seriously seeking another solution and voice. They are not opposed
to armed revolution if opportunity loosens things up to permit it and coordination
becomes established. Guns will be their voice.
- They come off like kooks because when asked what is wrong
they either stammer with rage or provide a flood of a backlog of 20 years
of exasperation. They've basically been driven to barely containable exasperation.
When they explode, ridiculing liberals laugh and call them irrational.
- Beyond the 35 percent another probable 20 percent are
secretly ready, passively hoping a massive rebellion will occur, or who
will become willing participants should the social condition become such
that it no longer enforces their repressed condition and they feel released
- Basically, America is ready to explode, and has been
for 35 years. The explosion has been counteracted and held in check by
the liberal media.
- If someone in sympathy were given editorial control of
one of the major networks and were to label the potential rebellion as
a constitutional or freedom-rights movement while providing articulate
advocated sympathetic TV news and discussion coverage that Martin Luther
King or members of the leftist movements received during the 60s, there
would be armed rebellion in America within a year. There is probably no
serious doubt of it anywhere.
- The motivation and potential is there. Large portions
of Americans have been ready to explode for years. If a sense of direction
and coordination develop, there could be a revolution and civil war. The
angry disenfranchised sit at home cleaning their rifles in the privately
held wish that one day they get a chance to send a bullet in their tormentors'
- When Bill Clinton is found to be getting oral sex and
masturbating while making arrangements to send troops to Bosnia, and James
Carville appears on TV justifying it by shouting, "It's about sex.
This is Wawr, I tell you!" their eyes turn to red hot coals, they
grit their teeth, then they go to buy another box of cartridges hoping
the war will come to full fruition. It's the basis of the militia movement
in the United States. The militia movement is purely a movement preparing
for the final remaining option of possible armed resistance against imposition
of the agenda of the countercultural political left in the United States.
There is no real doubt about it anywhere.
- A basic ploy and system of interpretation between the
two sides in this war, which is non-violent for the present, is the rule
of law. The radical left maintains gun confiscation is necessary in this
instance to impose the rule of law. The resistance argues that what is
designed to be achieved is not the rule of law, but is instead an unconstitutionally
imposed rule of systematic madness where law is systematically perverted
for purposes of imposing absolute obedience to a counterculteral left-wing
- So far the rebellion and resistance have been controlled,
or perhaps repressed is a better term. They have been controlled by the
liberal media through a combination of a blackout of critical views concurrent
with selective presentation of a ridiculing image of them whenever possible.
The government has been effective. Every third person at a militia meeting
is a federal agent. There is a maxim among the militia people that the
person attending the group espousing the loudest and most extreme views
is probably a federal agent trying to manipulate the group into violent
moves for purposes of entrapment.
- When the so-called Freemen in Montana were besieged by
federal agents, militia units from around the country began to travel to
the siege vowing that this time there would be no Ruby Ridges or Wacos.
The confrontation was precluded when they were intercepted and prevented
from establishing their own siege of government forces at the site.
- In a brilliant propaganda move, Bill Clinton went to
Montana, mounted a horse, and had TV footage shown of him riding about
a selected secured portion of the countryside in a defiant game of singing
"who's afraid of the big bad wolf" in a state where a significant
proportion of the population would have given anything to have blasted
him off that horse and unto the nether regions.
- Gun control is a method imposed to prevent the widespread
civil unrest in America from erupting. People on both sides of the issue
know that's what it's really about. People on both sides of the issue deny
that's what it is about. The enraged people waiting and determined to hold
on to their guns are forced to deny it because not to deny it is a criminal
act. The people trying to confiscate the guns to immobilize potential revolt
deny it because talking about the issue both reveals their agenda and might
lead to an articulate clarification that could become a motivating rallying
point that would draw substantial new members to the prerevolutionary condition.
- The condition of angry dissatisfaction and political
unrest is such that the government can no longer allow people to own guns
while it continues to impose the reasons for that dissatisfaction.
- Gun control is dangerous for a number of serious reasons.
- The imposition of gun control in America would be a a
dangerous acceptance of the irrational arguments demanding its imposition,
further creating a society where reality is displaced by irrationality
and hysteria. That's an unwise idea.
- Gun control is dangerous for the same reasons gun control
advocates say it is necessary. As a statistical fact, in the last 35 years
America has become a land filled with violence and madness. As a further
statistical fact, by far the predominant amount of that violence is not
committed with guns. The absolute prohibition of guns would not eliminate
the violence, but would only render victims incapable of defense.
- Perhaps most importantly, gun control is used:
- 1) to hide an existent condition of madness in America;
- 2) to hide a condition of imposed pervasive madness in
- 3) to repress the consequences of imposing an agenda
of increased pervasive madness in America, while simultaneously prohibiting
all reactive options except acquiescent compliant desperation and conformity.
- The gun problem in America is not a problem with guns,
but with madness and disrespect for other people.
- General Reference
- Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: understanding crime
and gun-control laws, Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1998.
- Robert L. Kocher is the author of "The American
Mind in Denial," as well as many other articles. He is an engineer
working in the area of solid-state physics, and has done graduate study
in clinical psychology. His email address is email@example.com.
- SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE
Site Served by TheHostPros