Letter to All Americans About Gun Control from an Independent Dissident
Guns are an effective form of human violence, which is why they are so often employed in both war and crime. They are dangerous and deadly. Reasons for their existence are not always, or even often, noble. They kill. This is to say we human animals kill—and nowhere more so than for political reasons—such as a nation venturing abroad for purported reasons to exact war against terrorists, etc. (while not ironically understanding that war is terrorism). And yet there is something "more" dangerous than weapons and that is politics itself (that history reminds us over and over again). Guns do "not" exist in a vacuum—they are artifacts built for and by a corrupt species of creature. No government ever—no matter how much naïve trust by blind patriotism exist—should be trusted to the point citizens just hand over their right to defend themselves from those in power. ALL forms of government are corruptible, and so are ALL forms of institution. This government (and especially both major political parties and their lobby cronies), if not thoroughly corrupt, is still too corrupt—including its capacity to violate human rights. Banning of guns (or other Constitutional rights) here in the United States must be understood within these recent radical changes that have happened especially since 9/11. It could be the equivalent of giving Mafia thugs your last weapons.
From Gary Ghost, one American male (no party or organization affiliation)
[Note: This essay is written by a true minority and was not written to please any majority point of view. Some statements or attitudes herein may rile or alienate readers to the point of wanting to reject before giving it an entire hearing. However it may be worth reading in its entirety to understand the overall message. If you feel this argument is vital and important feel free to share, post, email, etc., especially your companions and people with clout such as politicians, organizations, etc.]
Guns, as means of deadly force, are but one significant variable in this complex and too often dangerous world of many political realities. Violence, in general, which is really our core subject, as it is also the gun's mission, has had an exceedingly long human history—far surpassing the invention of gunpowder or any particular weapon. This is to say violence, in all its possible forms, will not go away any time soon. Nor is it limited to our human race such as triggered by willfulness or passion. It is part of a natural order—far broader than rage, calculation or moral assumption—rather intrinsic in the dynamics of change—as hail, tornado, and lighting strike.
Guns are an effective form of human violence, which is why they are so often employed in both war and crime. They are dangerous and deadly. Reasons for their existence are not always, or even often, noble. They kill. This is to say we human animals kill—and nowhere more so than for political reasons—such as a nation venturing abroad for purported reasons to exact war against terrorists, etc. (while not ironically understanding that war is terrorism). Plus stockholding investors make lots of money from weapon manufacturing companies—that sometimes sell to both sides of a conflict.
Fear is another reason why weapons exist. Fear dominates, or at least resonates within, the very existence of humanity—especially in this "age of anxiety" with its many unknowns and likely future forms of despair. And yet fear is not necessarily bad, as some fears are rational, some rational only learned through becoming aware, whereas others are irrational or misguided, and still some others hard to categorize because of the unpredictability of factors involved. Nevertheless both fear and violence are very human realities; and one thing that we can be sure is that banning guns from the general populace will not rid this 21st century of either human fear or violence.
We know violence is sometimes used for rational ends, such as calculated war, calculated terror, and even criminal enterprise. It can be semi-rational as means of game and gambit. Yet force and coercion exists in many forms, and yet it is true when weapons are actually employed they are seldom interested in negotiation (although they may be more so than some imagine). Guns, like all deadly weapons, are about power—at least the projection of power. Thus guns exist, as deadly as they are, within context of all other forms of political and social power—including various forms of coercive law and political tyranny, and types of public suasion, including those who scream for political correctness and common sense, and all realm of the humanly possible. [Yet we note common sense is not so common and the truly political is seldom correct.]
Political control of one's right to employ any form of force or power is always within a large political and social context. For example, coercive control happens when political forces legally destroy a person's right to privacy, liberty, or right of association (that is without potentially being spied on), as when all manner of Constitutional laws are ignored as literally shattered by actual bureaucratic practices. Changes likes these within our society, are also forms of violence, of which this American nation is very much besieged. And unfortunately the perpetrators are the very politicians who swore an oath to protect our American Constitutional Rights. These many realities, and more worthy of a new Declaration of Independence, perpetrated by corrupted manner of government are especially bad omen for the majority of people of this nation.
It is within this context, that we ask American parents, who want and expect to raise their children in safe neighborhoods and schools, we all step back and look at a larger picture of how Americans respect, or disrespect, much of the rest of the world (as to what forms of real politics and business practices actually play out), in international environments on the ground, and whether we are being protective of foreigners' safety. There is a mental health psychology in every society between the balance of what a given society claims to respect as sacred and what it actually respects as sacred—including habits of rationalization toward people in general (here and abroad); and when there is much hypocrisy within that balance, that society can suffer from side affects of disrespect within even as it worries about blowback from without.
Perhaps it is time someone suggested it is unfortunate that parents, of all the millions of millions of "willing-to-be" parents throughout the world, have "not" philosophically found enough wisdom to realize giving birth to a life on this planet is a very precarious enterprise (especially given humanity's nature, his history, and his enormous capacity for cultural and religious delusion (such as his exceptionalism and divine missions), as well as his propensity to create and believe propaganda, indulge passions and prejudices like hatred, etc., including his historical propensity to violence, and all manner of rationalization to justify such violence, ought give any potential parent pause. Why have there been so few radicals asking why do so many parents assume kids are going to be happy to even be born into this world with all its crazy and serious issues? Perhaps it would be better if the entire human race realized a very practical goal would be to "not" have children in the first place and just let humans go extinct?
This question is not simply a tactic to change the topic from gun violence in schools to the wisdom of parenting in general, because there is something to be said about all manner of presumptions parents and people assume about any society or the world. Why, for example, would a sane person want to be born into a world that already has thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds that could go off in a short time, not to mention all the other many megatons of ammunition and weaponry the world now possesses? Or why would a sane person want to be born into a world in which there is expectation of major conflicts between various nations and civilizations over various limited but highly regarded resources? Or why would a sane person want to be born into a world, in which people are expected to be self-supporting and yet there are fewer and fewer jobs that pay a salary allowing one to live semi-comfortably (especially when more people are born versus engineers' ability to robotize and mechanize work)? Why would a sane person want to be born into a world there is ever any kind of crime? Why would a sane person want to be born into a world in which collectives of peoples are literally murdering their environment, etc.? (There could be a far longer list of these kinds of questions.)
Instead children are born without their consent, and then are acculturated by various forms of righteous and nationalist dogma, such as mans' inevitable right to life and dominion over everything else (by no less than some God-figure). Meanwhile few dare suggest to be born might be more a curse than a blessing—because one is taught (brainwashed) that life is inevitably a sacred gift. And yet cultures can treat the world and all objects (including humans as commodities) as if nothing is sacred (in any true sense) despite all the lip service. Can it be sacred for the human race to continue to procreate and use the world's resources until there are limits to what lifestyles will be possible—that is while we are deluded into thinking our special form of religio-laissez-faire-capitalism for the wealthy can never fail to deliver to all our consumer-presumption needs? Is there not something violent about this kind of ignorance? Whereas writers on the left continue to presume and act as if there will be always be enough wealth production to guarantee every form of human rights (no matter how big the human population and its insatiable appetites). While I am usually on the left side of the continuum I now find more and more sellout by leftist of the middle and I do not feel I can trust leftist anymore.
This is the beginning of "our" collective mental illness—an unquestioned assumption for enterprising Homo sapiens to own a right to heaven on earth (at least for the chosen and the wealthy—or even with our collapsing middle class in which consumers use a full one quarter of the world's material resources and energy supply) as if people, at least here in the U.S., can continue to presume an unending supply of food, housing, entertainment, with a strong currency, and all manner of living in secure and beatific quarters?
Obviously a sane society should expect to have safe schools and neighborhoods. But maybe part of the problem is not as much mentally deranged people occasionally gaining access to guns—as some government-expansionists would have it—that now begs reason to scrutinize all mental health records of every American citizen (within all their inevitable subjectivity of opinion—which is what medical opinion ultimately consists) which is part of their "unstated" push for more gun control—that is more bureaucracy for classifying Americans by DNA, mental health records related to political propensities within a police state apparatchik).
But maybe we should look at the sanity of the Christian sheeple, so willing to corral into their own confinement, first? One of the outcomes of religion seems to be to condition people into having an excess of trust for authority (from one savior or another).
Regarding the Newtown school shooting in Connecticut, one rational response to controlling who has access to guns would be to create and enforce legislation that makes gun owners more responsible for locking up their weapons in their own homes so people who should not be playing with them don't have access to them. Perhaps Nancy Lanza should be held more responsible for her son, who had some personality disorder, having access to her guns?
Something seldom broached in the U.S. is the proven connection between episodes of humiliation and violence (see Thomas J. Scheff's Emotions and Violence: Shame and Rage in Destructive Conflicts and also his Bloody Revenge: Emotions, Nationalism, and War). Americans have started to acknowledge bullying practices kids deal with at schools but it took a fairly long time (meanwhile some Americans are not at all shy about using ways to embarrass and humiliate others as a form of psychological brutality).
But if most Americans actually understood the main message of Thomas Scheff's books they would have to question American and Israeli foreign policy because it seems we actually use tactics of humiliation to increase violent blowback—that thus allows the military and intelligence apparatus to beef up their budgets and power in order to deal with the violence they seem to inspire.
Obviously there was something psychologically going on with Adam Lanza. Guns just don't go killing people by themselves. Perhaps he had some kind of humiliating experience with his mother or that school. This could be important to know. And maybe cultures can be mentally ill just like individuals can be? Yet of the hundreds of reports created on various matters of national security—how many analyze the sanity of the people of nations (or even presume to be able to do so if it were reasonably possible)? Maybe one perpetrator is culture itself (even if it is part of this culture's assumption to blame the individual and ego)?
In our mass-media-driven culture there is always some kind of imminent fear (that the masses, via the media, are allowed to relate). Mainstream media constantly plays us a daily diet of crime, violence and sexual crime story, day in and day out, giving their many viewers the impression that no one is every safe, and that every stranger is potentially violent or some kind of offender. This is part of how a society can break down into atomized selves with no sense of person power. And since big cities likely have one murder a day to shove onto TV viewers the many are constantly reminded of their supposed and excessive vulnerability (even if less that one millionth of the population behaves in egregious ways). As news companies feel they must focus more on local news they also choose to focus on sensational crime—and because they know it sells more advertising and gets more viewers. Yes the media is invested in crime stories because people watch it (and it is something they can viscerally understand). "If it bleeds it leads" is not just some journalist idiom.
With 350 million people in this nation, and instant communications, there will always be horrendous crimes to keep people reminded about the extremist criminal nature of humanity, to constantly reinforce the impression that one cannot trust people, and that we need more and more prisons, guards, and longer prison sentences, and that we should constantly opt for fewer freedoms for the sake of security. The Police State and fascism starts with conditioning the human mind, as fear is the terrorist's tactic. Yes that is correct—the mainstream media can drive fear frenzies to motivate people to want to change the laws of this country to actually make them more and more repressive.
They can use deceptive forms of statistics, such as announcing: "... Every 20 seconds a woman is assaulted in the United States... " versus viewers doing the math. Presume then 100 million women in the U.S., and 180 "20 second frames/hour" (times) 24 hours to equal 6,360 assaults against women daily. Divide 100,000,000 women by 6,630 assaults to get approximately 1 assault for every 15,700 women. This second form of statistical presentation seems less alarming (and we are not sure what the term 'assault' all includes). This is not arguing numbers of any sort should be countenanced, but still there are deliberate attempts by various special interest groups, and the media to influence how people think and feel, using alarmist statistics as illusive deception into manipulating people to think more crimes are going on than what is true (because few people actually sit down and do the math—and not math-phobic women). Then come their mobilized protests of righteous indignation about America's need for more forms of draconian legislative measures.
Why are people in one of the world's most violent countries, with the biggest arsenal of weaponry and military weapon sales, and ownership of intimidating quantities of weapons of mass destruction, and a long history of propping up dictators and death squads around the world, constantly complaining about "their" innocence and victimization within their own country, that is when chaos breaks out occasionally on the home front, meanwhile have too little activist concern about all manner of violence going on in other parts of the world—including forms of mass murder? What realities do we need to be thinking about as far as an individual's right to the power of weapon versus government behavior in this exceedingly complicated (and corrupt) world? And how can you possibly escape thinking about one without thinking about the other?
It is naïve to think that the Unites States lives in a vacuum, that there is no relationship between our foreign policy, our corporate culture, our government's actual behavioral practice (forget the rhetoric) and levels of crime. It may not be a direct one to one relationship but it likely exist. To discuss guns is to talk about horrific war, corruption, and all manner of potential repression (such as torture). Gun control, rightly, is an extremely political subject. Many, many peoples have been killed with guns, and other weapons of warfare, in "many" parts of the world over the last centuries and decades.
And yet there is something "more" dangerous than weapons and that is politics itself (that history reminds us over and over again). While there are new expanding technological capacities, human nature stays much the same as ever ready for moral depravity. Guns do "not" exist in a vacuum—they are artifacts built for and by a corrupt species of creature. Those who believe in some kind of socialist Utopia leveraged on an excess of trust are deceiving themselves, such as by thinking common people will never need protection from their own government.
Michael Moore was correct in his recent speech after Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, at Beacon Theatre in NYC, in which he basically agreed with the NRA on the point "people" kill: not guns, but then offered his modification: "... Americans kill ... that is what we do... " referring to, for example, to five ongoing U.S. wars, etc. If Michael Moore is a bleeding heart liberal he still understands violence can happen because of the decisions made on Wall Street that impoverish middle class and rural Americans (and urban homeless). He knows violence comes in many forms that don't sound loud or seem bloody, but can be equally devastating in their effects on people, such as by lost jobs and homes that sometimes also leads to suicide and other tragedies and problems.
What we Americans need to asking ourselves (within the context of many complicated realities) is, should we be banning dangerous weapons for the common man while our too-often law-defying government stockpiles them along side mountains of ammunition? UPI did a story in March on the Department of Homeland Security order for 450 million rounds of 40 caliber bullets (hollow point—killers) from ATK Security and Sporting Group of Anoka Minnesota worth $49 million contract. (Google "40 caliber bullet wound image" to see this bullet's capacity for violence that can be used in assault rifles.) There are only 350 million Americans—so smart people are asking "Why this huge order by a 'new' internal Police State department that has engaged in more and more encroachment against American civil liberties and freedoms?"
And yet this is only part of the story—there were actually 1.6 billion bullets ordered with various companies (see "If Obama is opposed to guns, why did his administration just purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition and sniper rounds?" at:
link to www.naturalnews.com
Apparently some political elites of this corrupted U.S. political and economic system are worried about internal rebellion and they are planning for violent crackdowns. They would like to ban weapons from common Americans? We know things are turbulent as many people of several states want to secede from the nation (and if you have really been paying attention to "real" news found on the Internet you can't blame them—because even if there are some wacky ideas floating around, and equally some reflecting unrealistic nostalgia, there are also plenty of areas of real and serious concern about government corruption and potential repression). People who want to prevent Americans from owning weapons of a civil war stature—in case there is ever a need for civil war—ought to be explaining why we should trust this government—as opposed to them jumping on the bandwagon for more Police State Security?
What we The People "now" need is a thorough analysis of just how much the federal government, especially by the DHS has increased its police state apparatus within all our states, and local counties and cities, so we can begin to understand this hegemonic Leviathan that has been silently amassing. This includes not only everything that has actually happened because of the Patriot Act (as limiting personal liberty and privacy); but all related legislative acts like the National Defense Authorization Act and its Military Use of Force Act assumptions (that allows for military control and lockup of people suspected of aiding terrorism here within our nation); but also broadening of FISA and NSA powers; and other disclosures like Dana Priest and William Arkin "Top Secret America" reporting series in Washington Post back in the summer of 2010; or the more recent December 2012 report in the Wall Street Journal about illicit spying by the National Counter-Terrorism Centers. The amount of legal changes and illicit behavior by this government, that will not give up its assumed right to own force, is staggering, and much under the pretext of opportunity when people are willing to submit to more control as they feel terrorized.
This is why any banning of guns (or other Constitutional rights) here in the United States must be understood within these recent radical changes that have happened especially since 9/11. Should we The People "just" trust our government, as we trusted U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives with their Patriot Act that they "never" read or wrote (as it was railroaded into law while Americans were feeling their fears, vulnerabilities and passions from 9/11)? There were highly motivated political forces "ready" to capitalize on the terrorism of 9/11 (and they did). Equally we must understand some reactions to terrorist events (irrespective of who responsible) are premeditative calculations for political reasons that have little to do with the actual offending violence—to take advantage of those who cannot or will not think things through clearly and thoroughly (and wisely).
Perhaps "you" trust the American government and various special interest forces that basically run this country in one manner or another? Personally I do not trust the American government, and many of our elective representatives, or perennial career employees of some executive departments (who do not run for office), to look out for the rights and liberties of citizens. If you thoroughly study America's foreign policy over the last decades, and if you are honest and sincere in your research, you cannot possibly conclude the Washington D.C. Establishment should be trusted in any major way—especially in relationship to giving up your 2nd Amendment right to own guns (your only and last defense against their possible tyranny).
No doubt, by far, most government employees are decent, law-abiding citizens worthy of respect. But this does not counter the reality that some in strategic positions of power are far more susceptible to politics, dishonesty and crime than are the majority. These are the people we need to be concerned, such as their planning for police responses to civil unrest for such possibilities as economic collapse and other disrupting truths.
This government (and especially both major political parties and their lobby cronies), if not thoroughly corrupt, is still too corrupt—including its capacity to violate human rights. Banning weapons here today or in the near future could be the equivalent of giving Mafia thugs your last weapons. It could be paramount to suicide or worse, as lock up in concentration camps whenever Martial Law is declared, or any move based on preventing riot, because they actually have psychopaths employed in The Beltway (such as in influential Neo-Con think-tanks, but not limited to influential policy centers, who would gladly send your kids to war on false pretenses (as they have already done with many American parents' kids).
This is The Establishment's blowback paranoia. For example they know military personnel coming back from stints in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., that some now know they were lied to, and so suspect some of these men and women are angry and possibly dangerous. They don't want revolution and justice served. This is to say they don't want some of the criminals at the top of the pecking order hanged here the way Saddam Hussein was hanged. And this is equally why there have been continuous attempts, via the U.S. Congress, to control more and more Internet freedoms (old time Congress people know things).
Truths have been slowly infiltrating to the masses about the lies fed (lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq from an axis-of-evil, that is the Neo-Con/ Oil Industry/ Military Industrial Complex investor class conspirators) but also important affiliates in the media like Judith Miller and David Sanger of the New York Times (not to mention Rupert Murdock and his filth of twisted ambition). Yes media's lapdog involvement of going along with Neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith's Pentagon infiltration, establishing their own Office of Special Plans OSP to plant "alternative Chalibi lies" as supposedly alternative intelligence, is too big a story to summarize in one article (and is already documented).
Suffice it to say, the Second Amendment, is not about sport hunting (superficial red herring), not primarily about your right to defend yourself from criminals (which is certainly a topic worthy of debate especially when crazy shooters act as terrorists), but rather the more important reason that every citizen has a right to own guns to protect themselves from corrupt forms of tyrannical government (that is their employees as instigated Police State Department who might engage various levels of harassment and oppression). This is what our founding fathers understood—that all forms of government are corruptible—and when they are so, are powerfully corrupt and violent.
No government ever—no matter how much naïve trust by blind patriotism exist—should be trusted to the point citizens just hand over their right to defend themselves from those in power. ALL forms of government are corruptible, and so are ALL forms of institution, including the news media, and even religions are corruptible—or at least their megaphones and personalities can be used to deceive citizens into being too trusting as to hand even "more" power over to the few who also control strategic resources.
Americans need a new Declaration of Independence. We need to make some historical sense. We Americans cannot give these people, or their spokespeople, or other wealthy and influential tyrants, the right to ban our guns, elect our leaders, or make our laws. Currently there is a smear campaign going on to destroy Chuck Hagel's chance to become Secretary of Defense because he has not been ass-kissing enough to right-wing Zionists who think they should dictate our foreign policy. Many of our own elected officials would rather treasonously betray Hagel's determination of putting American concerns before Israel's.
Too many of our leaders are the least trustworthy people to listen or debate on the matter of gun control (including senators like Diane Feinstein—a woman who is clearly an insider within our corrupt foreign policy and who also has a permit to carry a weapon). Her life and biography may be complex and worthy but even her supposed attempt to kill the military's right to detain Americans if suspected of aiding terrorists amounted to little more than subordination to the military authority (and of course her claimed rhetoric did not pass anyway as more show than anything).
Senator Paul Wellstone (a left-wing Jewish American) was assassinated, via an airplane crash, shortly before there was serious debate on whether the U.S. should attack Iraq. The Iraq War happened because Neo-Cons like William Kristol (a right wing Likud Israeli-firster with a screw American goyim attitude) helped push lies that had Americans fighting Israel's enemies, such as Saddam Hussein, etc. Their whole plan was to have Christian countries (as Nato and U.S.) go to war with Muslim countries primarily for the benefit of one Zionist country, in a decades-long series of wars called the Clash of Civilizations (book by Samuel Huntington). And our government and the news media covered up Paul Wellstone's murder and his subsequent absence of debating attacking Iraq. Axis-of-evil NeoCons convinced the other two axis of evil, oil and military industrial complex investors, that attacking Israel's enemies like Iraq, Syria, and Iran was in all three's best interests (and so there are still feeding us lies today).
Meanwhile U.S. Congress is creating "their" right to read our email (and all our communication—as already ongoing). They can already know almost anything they want about us. And yet we are supposed to trust these people who have already violated our rights in many ways?
They have spent enormous amounts of tax revenue to engage in unnecessary and unwise wars primarily designed to benefit certain industries and political blocks (but not the majority of American people). Yet seldom do these "violence" budget items for special operations and drone programs get any hostility on the part of debates about a fiscal cliff?
Diane Feinstein, our latest savior (oh and since she is a woman she is somehow less hawish), is smack in the middle of our corrupted policies including allowing telephone and Internet companies to spy on us. She is a significant player in our current U.S. foreign policy that kills people every day, over and over and over again (not to mention torturing people—and quite frankly many people would rather be shot to die quickly than to be slowly tortured). Therefore Feinstein is too much like a dumb Madeleine Albright saying in a 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl when question about 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of U.S. long-term sanctions on Iraq, whether she as then Secretary of State thought it worth it, with her infamous "... it was a difficult decision but we thought it was worth it (supposedly punishing Saddam Hussein—a man the CIA previously helped put in power and supplied weapons when they were at war with Iran). Albright was not stupid because of what she said but because of her whole back-ass-ward way of thinking (as insider). Saddam Hussein only became the devil after he kicked Western oil companies out of Iraq because they wanted too much of the cut (before that while he was actually committing atrocities the U.S. media and State Department was pretty much quiet). And what about the depleted uranium that will be inflicting medical harm for many years? Or what about the Iraq infrastructure destroyed as war crimes (and deliberate humiliation)?
So if we lived in a sane and reputable country of some modicum of nobility and probity, radical gun control might be an important, front-burner issue—but we don't live in that kind of country. We live in a country of enormous disparity, delusion, and greed. More importantly we live in a country in which we have few intellectuals who we can trust (few who are cynical and sophisticated enough to understand the abyss of long-tern potential of political repression that could come to exist—especially without peoples' right to any form of power). This country too could evolve into a Stalinist camp that wreaks havoc on the masses of people by fascist and militarist might (read the damn Soviet x-gulag prisoner that wrote the book).
Jesse Ventura is right and the sooner the rest of our nation and his group of the special force figure this out the better we all are.
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion