And that’s why the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is a deeply flawed enterprise. This quote from Executive Director Josh Horowitz, lifted from an anti-gun polemic in the anti-gun polemic-friendly Huffington Post illustrates the gun control organization’s amoral core: “Byron Williams was obviously not 100% mentally stable, but good mental health is not currently a prerequisite to amassing an arsenal of firearms in our society.” You may remember Byron as the nut job who decided to shoot some people both he and right-wing commentator Glenn Beck didn’t like . . .
Be that as it may, as you know, everyone who buys a firearm from a gun dealer must sign a form stating that they haven’t been incarcerated for mental health issues. The feds maintain links to various state records for verification (with increasing efficiency).
It’s a sly lie; implying that a severely mentally ill individual can buy guns legally. And that has implications! Other than giving mentally adjusted gun owners another reason to own or carry a gun.
Google the phrase “An armed society is a polite society” and you will find hundreds of references to gun lobby spokespersons who claim that the push to arm every man and woman in America will not only make us safer but result in a utopia of good manners (sort of like the threat of mutually assured destruction in the nuclear age was at one time thought to temper angry rhetoric among nations). It is worth looking at this claim again in light of a disturbing new report issued yesterday by Media Matters for America. The report demonstrates a clear link between armed violence and the contemptuous political rhetoric that seems to be the raison d’être for Fox News.
I’m not going to parse Horowitz’s exploration of the link between impolite (a.k.a incendiary) speech and gun violence. The fact that he’s guilty of the same extremist tone and language, willing to lie about gun laws to promote gun laws, happy to smear Fox News without giving the media company or its viewers any respect or consideration, is indictment enough.
What I want to know is this: where is the gun organization that’s FOR gun rights AND reducing gun crime? Why do the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, The Mayor Against Illegal Guns, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and their ilk get to corner the market on gun crime reduction.
It’s not enough for the NRA, GOA and the NSSF to be FOR guns. They too should be AGAINST gun crime. As Sun Tzu said, 是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也. One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful.
The NRA would claim to be the organization both for gun rights and against gun crime.
The NRA would tout itself as an enormous trainer of law enforcement personnel, and point to several other initiatives it has supported, usually in favor of stricter penalties for those who commit crimes with guns, or other programs.
But that's what the NRA would say.
the gun-grabbers’ argument is, in fact, “a fallacy of composition”: because there are some “mentally disturbed” people in society who might acquire guns, then, the acquisition of guns should be made as hard as possible for every-one!;
that a few “disturbed people” and “criminals” might acquire guns is not the issue!
“the issue” is that the overwhelming majority of sane, law-abiding people have them!…..because cops cannot and will not protect the average citizen from “the crazies”!….who, even if gun laws were as tough as possible, could, quite possibly, still acquire guns…..
there is also “a fallacy of equivocation” here: conflating criminal behaviour with psychotic behaviour!……there’s a difference between “bad” & “mad”!……although, because most liberal marxist twats are “atheists”, they can’t quite bring them-selves to address the “problem of evil”….so: they re-define it is “psychotic behaviour”!
i think Thomas Szasz has some-thing to say on all of this….and on the very dubious nature of “psychiatry” in general!
Let’s see.
All humans are victims of something, so there’s always a cause available to champion. Crime. O.K. we’ll start there. Guns. Gun crimes. Always victims there.
Victims need legal representation, every shooting is legally actionable, got our legal team in place. Deep pockets. Uh, insurers, homeowner’s insurance, business owner’s insurance. Municipalities. They need legal assistance too. Then there’s retailers, distributors, and yes, yes, gun manufacturers, ammunition and gunpowder makers we’ll sue ’em all.
Oh, and contributions. We need support. Victims will help, donors, we need more donors. Foundations, big money, they’ll help.
Logos and slogans. Signs, banners, information leaflets. Contributions, Contributions, Contributions.
Legislation. We need more legislation. People in government always want more control, and who could oppose us that we can‘t make look evil? Our cause is endless, guns only kill people. Doesn’t matter most are criminals anyway, parolees, early releases, career criminals, the more the better.
We have an object to focus on, we hold the moral high ground ( defenselessness only provides us with more victims ) and there’s a large organization already in place to demonize. We’ll call them the gun lobby.
Besides, people are generally just dumb animals. They don’t want independence, just kind masters, and they love a cause. Perfect.
Thank goodness we’re in America. None of this would work anywhere south on this continent.
Whereas the need exists to close the Firearms Speech loophole:
Freedom of Firearms Speech Act. HB 357. SB 308
Upon enactment, any person expressing an opinion in written form, or directing others to express an opinion;
said opinion in any way related to firearms, guns, gun control laws, amendments to Constitutions, State or Federal and related in any manner;
who receives compensation of any type, monetary or otherwise;
including but not expressly limited to all members of organizations which have as their object any firearm or gun related issues;
Are hereby required to personally possess at least one firearm, hand-held or shoulder-fired.
Proof of legal ownership, bill of sale and any and all other required forms, and the ability to physically display said firearm on demand now required under law.
Failure to comply with the Freedom of Firearms Speech Act will result in penalties of no less than a $10,000.00 fine and incarceration in a Federal penitentiary of no less than 1 year from date of sentencing.
Comments are closed.