portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | imperialism & war

Progressives Are Not Being Honest About Gun Control

Few things are more dangerous to a nation's citizenry than when its leaders decide to turn on their own or selected groupings of their own people (and Jewish people should especially understand this). Tyrannical governments should be feared far more than various types of weapons—especially when tyrants have no or few restrictions on their own selection of weapons. The progressive idea of the 2nd Amendment was the notion that common people can have the right to defend themselves against tyrannical governments (including and especially when their own choose to turn on them—which has happened all throughout history). THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND ITS CURRENT DYSFUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL DOES NOT WARRANT TRUST ENOUGH FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO HANDOVER GUNS TO THIS CORRUPTED STATUS QUO.
Progressives Not Being Honest On Gun Control

By Speak Spade

[Note—if you agree with this essay and think it is important feel free to share, email, post, publish, etc.]

Few things are more dangerous to a nation's citizenry than when its leaders decide to turn on their own or selected groupings of their own people (and Jewish people should especially understand this). Tyrannical governments should be feared far more than various types of weapons—especially when tyrants have no or few restrictions on their own selection of weapons. The progressive idea of the 2nd Amendment was the notion that common people can have the right to defend themselves against tyrannical governments (including and especially when their own turn on them—which has happened all throughout history).

Yet this argument gets far too little mention from liberals like Amy Goodman's DemocracyNow.Org, Pacifica broadcast of her Global News Hour War and Peace Report. Rather than being fair and balanced about this important consideration she and her colleagues heavily weight their show's reporting and commentary to a supposedly "mainstream" and supposedly "sane" family agenda of allowing our government to heavily restrict the types of weapons common people can own (thus destroying any ability for independent Americans to be able to protect themselves from their own corrupted government (and its enormous arsenal of weaponry and resource—none of which liberals attempt to restrict).

And as crucial and extremely relevant to a truly honest debate about gun control, is for all people—liberals, all in the middle and on the right of America's majority, to get honest about just how corrupt the American Government and our America culture truly is. This is where the debate needs to go—and must go—because the American government is really very corrupt (and has been for a long time). And yet like the frog finding self in boiling water it forgets to realize how dangerous things are getting. Why would truly aware Americans trust the Washington D.C. Establishment or its Mainstream Media stenographers (or pretenders of independent thought)?

The real meaning of liberal is not someone willing to try anything at first impulse that seems a good solution but someone who listens and thinks about "all" relevant points of view fairly before deciding a course of action. It is NOT liberal to say that just because I am a wife or a husband and I believe in the inevitable right to have children that then I can espouse whatever repressive laws will create a false sense of naïve security (such as banning all or most guns) which naïve moms and children were saying in interviews during a Million Moms March protest across the Brooklyn bridge). Why aren't those moms explaining to their children why they, as parents, even thought it was a good idea to have given birth to innocent children into this screwed up world in the first place? Just because one is a mom and or a woman doesn't make it truth that gender means the epitome of innocence. Women have time to discover what kind of planet this is and realize it isn't necessarily a place one would even want to raise kids.

More importantly this gun control debate is NOT primarily about the NRA or the gun industry. And yes they have a big stake in it so it is fair to report on how much of a stake they do have. And it is not primarily or even secondarily about whether schools should be protected by armed police or teachers. (Schools can volunteer to get metal detectors run by non-police if they chose to.) The NRA is shooting itself in the foot if this is the best response they can come up with.

Rather this debate needs to focus on the important matter of THE PEOPLES' RIGHT to protect themselves from the American Government. There is enormous fear for many people to vocalize a simple truth: the American government is not just one of the most corrupt governments currently in existence, but is likely one of the most corrupt countries in history. This is what NO ONE wants to talk about, or acknowledge, for fear of rejection, reprisal, ostracism, persecution, imprisonment, torture and death (all activities our people are more than capable of). The United States ought be one of the last countries people would want to trust—especially when it comes to such important matters as handing over their right to self-protection from this same government. NOBODY argues this case and yet this is the seminal matter.

Why is it so hard to say: "I'm afraid of my own government and afraid of some of the special interest groups that wield too much power in our government, such as those who keep getting our society into various wars"?

If We The People truly had a trustworthy government with a trustworthy track record it would be one thing, but this is not at all the case. Those people, like President Obama, who claim they want to hear from all sides on the matter, are not getting the message. It is being suppressed. Instead we are being told there is no legitimate reason for Americans to want to have semiautomatic and automatic weapons—that one only needs guns for sports hunting and hand guns for protection against criminal intrusion. Everyone is just supposed to assume government itself is not at all any kind of potential problem (rather just some trust-loving father or grand-father figure).

And one of the reasons this argument is being suppressed is because there are OTHER MOTIVES involved in taking away guns than simply making America safer (whether President Obama, most politicians, and most Americans know it or not). So what we are currently stuck with is a tyranny of a naïve majority, using the semblance of a demagogue's passion play to excite the masses, while they "hail" our great and supposedly trusted leaders on, as they use the foil to claim that the NRA and gun industry and everything related are the bad guys—as if this were merely an issue of starry-eyed pacifists against corrupted motives of gun thugs. The NRA may have several dominant motives that are self-interested, narrow and even arrogant as intent—but these are not the important issues about gun ownership now as U.S. history unfolds.

Study the "real" history of American foreign policy and you will see one act of undemocratic exploitation after another, one illegal war after another, one form of extortion, murder and torture after another. No one can ultimately be safe from this government (even if much of the dirty work has been done by surrogates and proxies). Chris Hedges, astute social and political commentator, and Pulitzer Prize winner, also author of several important books including The Death of the Liberal Class, wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 (website TruthDig.Com) an article called What Is Happening to Muslims Will Happen to the Rest of Us. Somehow Americans think they are impervious to the kinds of fates many other peoples have suffered throughout history or currently suffer (see online video Innocents Betrayed) or they magically presume our bad guys are not quite as bad, or would never be as bad, as those baddies that did terrible things in Germany or Russia.

How could any sane person possibly trust the American Congress or the Executive Branch (or and especially the two major political parties married to special interests, such as the Neo-Con-Artist agenda, and as not particularly democratic or republican) to make laws banning guns for We The People, while not being suspicious that this same government (or some version thereof) will not one day persecute, imprison, torture and kill some of its own people? How much Kool-Aid have people been drinking?

Furthermore this debate is not about labeling hyperactive vigilantes like Alex Jones as pushers of paranoia—because the fact is Alex Jones is right on many of the details he makes people aware—even if his overall schemata of a globalist-takeover plot seems far-fetched. When you study highly regarded academics like Daron Acemoglu (MIT) and James Robinson (Havard) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty you realize many forms of established power have worked to the detriment of sharing power and wealth with others (and often acted in repressive and undemocratic manners—that is they became extractive and parasitic). Their book shows us many, many examples of this contemporary and historical reality. Or if you read the likes of Kevin Phillips Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism you realize our finance sector too has been exploiting people. These realities described by respected academics may not equal up to some overall calculation of a mega-conspiracy of sorts as some populists may so label but the effects are much the same.

The United States has "many" extractive and parasitic forces consolidating power and wealth—so Alex Jones is more than sane and accurate than what a lot of the mainstream and middle class assume (and more importantly know) as they have been too much seduced by false and "calculated" impressions from the mainstream). "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you."

Sometimes paranoia and extreme opinion is sanity. One thing serious thinkers should realize is that when people get angry you need to listen to them, because people get angry about what they care about or what they perceive as important (even if their issues don't resonate or seem important to others). Mr. Alex Jones might seem a bit mad-minded—but he was dead on when it came to asking Mr. Piers Morgan why he and his media company wasn't "indicting" pharmaceutical companies about violence in America due to the side effects of medications—clearly a culprit at least as culpable as the NRA or the gun industry. (Look at the smear campaign against Tom Cruz when he suggested people didn't need medications—how fair and balanced was that?). Is it not true that there is tendency to over-medicate in America (where is the Million Moms marching on that one?).

Why are so many Americans so naïve about history and human nature in general, and especially about America's real history? Why are Americans so willing to trust their own government, political parties, culture, and mass media? Don't they realize how many times they have been lied to? Yet even they eventually came to learn the lies of the Iraq invasion and its illegal occupation (which Israel had a great deal to do with making happen).

And they could easily as well know, if they did some research, our U.S. was strongly and primarily instrumental in over-throwing a democratically elected Iranian leader Mossadegh back in 1953 (and yes he was thought socialist and yes he nationalized Iranian oil and kicked big western oil out (or are we 'not' supposed to think it was Iran's oil instead of automatically assuming it belonged to western corporations?)), and equally our U.S. government helped put a brutal Shah in power in Iran and kept him in power for decades—while their notorious internal security service SAVAK tortured regularly (as supposedly trained by agents from the CIA and Israel (according to Jesse J. Leaf former CIA analyst—see William Blum's Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower and his Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since WW 2 or his Freeing the World to Death, etc.)).

And we should note there has been a strain of a history of U.S. and Israel sponsored torture—and the reason that is relevant is because right-wing Israel and Zionists has every intention of manipulating our country, our people and our resources into another major war—this time with Iran (irrespective that other recent interventions primarily "for" Israel have been declared disasters, and more importantly have hurt a lot of peoples' welfare, safety, besides destroying their infrastructure (including international crimes), while many people became displaced, homeless, murdered, or cruelly tortured and then murdered (and again Israel (via the U.S.) has already played a significant part in motivating these outcomes to become realities—just like we are currently fighting Charlie Wilson Wars in places like Syria, Libya, etc. for who?).

Take away Americans guns and then go to war with Iran. Yeah that sounds simple enough? If protests get too demonstrative—well too bad—what are you going to do about it? Besides this could be a really big war (as the manipulated war in Syria from American leadership (most U.S citizens would not normally care about) is just a prelude to going into Iran for both oil and for Israeli interests). Then if they need to restart the draft cause there are not enough volunteers—well protesters can just get imprisoned and maybe roughened up a bit (besides isn't that what willing parents already volunteer—their children's potential enlistment into wars (just or unjust) so they can shoot and kill others and be shot at and possibly killed in return?).

And isn't it ironic how many wars the U.S. is already involved in and how much money is spent by the U.S. Congress for the U.S. military machine and related budgets to keep us safe (and of course that is all justified too if it keeps moms in America and Israel safe—nothing worth complaining about in some march just because their government spends a bit of an over-reach—after all we have to protect not only our own interests from U.S. enemies but we have to protect Israel from all their enemies as well—and even engage in creating more enemies while doing so).

Whoever is in power—and it's not the President as singular and temporary ego even if a top-of-the-line speech maker—has the important cards. If you think citizens have power with the ballot you are beyond stupid as Ron Paul was deprived of his real chance of becoming the next President as someone who would actually have got us out of all these wars. Meanwhile Barark Obama as intelligent as he is (and people should not underestimate his acumen) has spent too much of his life coming to terms with his personal uniqueness and blackness—but he has not spent enough time understanding the greater capacity for evil that hides behind the greatest capacity to project trust—namely religion. He doesn't understand Israel wants to be the lion and expects the rest of the world to be the lamb. He doesn't understand that a real Universal God would never have told a Hebrew people to dominate or kill the inhabitants of Canaan—because such dogma could only have come from a tribal God as decreed in inter-tribal warfare, and therefore this Biblical creed was nothing more than war propaganda saying: "Our ethnocentric people own this land because our Yahweh said so, as he also said we should kill off its current inhabitants in our Canaan". Barack Obama doesn't understand that the Old Testament and Torah (and quite frankly the New Testament) are humanly created tools of propaganda (or if he does he doesn't act like it).

This is the trajectory we are expected to follow—more war for Israel while our economy collapses. That is more wars to prop up their form of government that in reality is antithetical to our own declared values of equality for all regardless of ethnicity, race or religion. This is one of the corrupting forces tearing our society apart. And what we get is a Congress too willing to suppress more of Americans' freedom. For a long time Zionists have been engaged in a propaganda war convincing us their enemies are also and exactly are enemies. This is the real working definition of Al Qaeda—whoever is an enemy of Israel is an enemy of the United States and the adjacent treason of U.S. Congress claiming an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States and their constant putting Israel's interests above those of Americans.

Why does this President find that his mission is to follow a path that creates a great deal of divisive alienation? A lot of independents voted willingly for Obama his first term, and reluctantly in his second as bad versus terrible (because they didn't want Romney), but one can well conclude President Obama has too much of a sense of deluded self-importance and moral mission to something grandiose. Even he cannot deny that is married to the machine (a machine that ultimately doesn't give a damn about him). He has already shown his colors in his first term as nothing more than an apologist to a corrupted Democratic Party that has loyalties to other interests and not the American people. Now he is willing to put his life and career on the line for what will NOT make Americans safer (that is until this government gets cleaned up first).

Practically everyone knows Israel has been deciding our foreign policy—at least in the Middle East. We went into to war with Iraq for Israel. This was all able to happen because of 9/11. (And it is NOT at all clear who was really behind 9/11, but people who doubt conspiracy theories about 9/11 the most, and choose to instead believe the official story, do so because they are afraid to learn more truth—they are the ones who have not done their research. Instead they proudly think they already know truth. Whereas if they really did more honest research they would likely come to have less trust of the U.S and Israeli government and the mainstream media—because it doesn't seem Osama bin Laden had much, if anything, to do with it. And they would be more inclined to question why people like Michael Chertoff and Jane Harmon are again advocating, as advisors to Homeland Security, to curtail Internet freedoms and privacy. Geraldo Rivera correctly stated in a debate that gun advocates fear their own government and he is correct. And he is correct not because Ron Stewart jokes about absurd or grandiose conspiracy theories held by Alex Jones but because they know the 9/11 story is a lie and likely realize the real culprits too willing to engage in their criminal activities (see internet essay "9/11: Who Really Benefitted" by Captain America (click on  http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-who-really-benefited/25762 ) and add to this the fact that there was no ADL complaints about all the locked up of Muslims after 9/11,or no mention of the massive propaganda campaign to paint all Muslims and Arabs as fanatical crazies bent on destroying America, and no complaints when there was a massive spy campaign against everything Muslim. Then the Anti-Defamation League had nothing to say against that minortity? Meanwhile Israel has been able to convince Americans that all their enemies equals Al Qaeda?

This is the crux of our American problem—and unwillingness to look at our criminal past and present—and instead wanting to focus on crimes people who are not in power might commit (even if the statistical averages are very low). It may sound impressive or somewhat shocking, that in the month since Sandy Hook killings, 900 Americans have died at the end of a gun; but the U.S. has a population of at least 360 million people. When you do the math that equals one in 400,000 (and likely many of those were suicides—which should be a human right in which suffering people ought have the means to die in dignity.)

Amy Goodman and her colleagues know our government is corrupt to the point it should not be trusted. In fact she and her crew do a good job reporting on a lot of it. And yet they do not tell their listeners to connect the dots. Rather people are still connecting the dots mainstream media coolies had pointed out long ago as they then showed them how and where to connect them. Why the disconnect?

It is precisely the people who have been the most courageous in reporting truth—including Alex Jones—yes the ugly truth about real conspiracies—that have the most to lose. And let us assume for a minute that Jones is only right one quarter of the time—still that is still something to be concerned about. But he is not the one screaming the most about the real cover-up. What about people who were or are involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement? Or what about all the attempts to control the Internet from this same Congress like Senator Feinstein and Joe Lieberman? If this government starts spying on, and concentrating dissidents for various reasons, such as for potential cases of martial law, then what power can save them through justice? Rebel groups of dissidents have been spied on, disappeared, killed en masse, tortured, etc., all through history, and all around the world, ad nauseas, because as Chris Hedges reminds us mankind is a beast and savage (even if social idealists act as too willing to trust those who run this government as the answer is too credulous to fathom).

The American government, and its corporate counterpart, already spies on us without warrant; they can already detain us without giving reason—indefinitely; they can now use the U.S. military to create martial law and concentrate people; they can even kill Americans if they are labeled terrorists; and now progressives want Americans to give up our last resort to any kind of defensive power to defend ourselves?

Why is it so hard to say it?


Leftists and rightists both are playing a Bolshevik move on a blind and dumb polity. We have a right and a duty to have real debate aired on this issue. What happens when either Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran (or engages false flag operations to commence hostilities as they are so readily expert) and we enter a World War and where that might lead?


If journalists and activists want a safe country then they can start with fixing the government first and its assumed domination over the entire world.

where were you? 29.Jan.2013 00:54


Where was your outrage when the patriot act was passed? It is so surprising to hear the outrage of the mental midgets about the possibility of gun control, but where were these people when the patriot act was passed. Something that really infringes on our rights.

and 29.Jan.2013 11:22


"Sometimes paranoia and extreme opinion is sanity"

And a ton of other times it's not.


@kili 29.Jan.2013 13:07


You're stereotyping and being very dishonest. For example: where were YOU when the PATRIOT Act was passed? I was 16 when it was first passed in October 2001, and it was passed without anyone(!) in congress even knowing the full provisions. There was no protest when it passed, there was only even slight commentary. When the act was renewed, both times, there was silence across most activist lines, sans a few blurbs in the progressive and libertarian journalistic circles, and the entire dialog was contained within journalistic limits. Don't pretend like you held a radical rally of people to oppose the patriot act, and if you did, it sure as shit didn't make it on PIMC. If there was a protest anywhere, it was of entirely no significance.

At the rally in Salem the weekend before last there was approximately 5,000 people. While a good number of them were myopic on their issue of the second amendment (this was a 2A specific rally), there were several people there who had signs about the war on drugs and the other unconstitutional actions of our government.

I think if you spent time with a diverse group of gun owners and 2A advocates you would probably find several points of unity. I feel as if I can make this statement without even knowing your own political viewpoints, simply because there are such a diverse community of gun owners in this town and all over. Don't pretend like gun owners are not on your side and not in your community. If there are no gun owners in your community, then you should keep your ass on Hawthorne or Belmont in fantasy land.

Gee, antisemitism on indy? It can't be. 29.Jan.2013 15:07


Jew-haters should note that Chris Hedges clearly and rightly says, "AIPAC does not drive Middle Eastern policy in the United States. AIPAC is one of an array of powerful and well-funded neoconservative institutions that worship force and drive our relations with the rest of the world." ( link to dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)

As the Palestinian scholar Joseph Massad says in "Blaming the Lobby":

"... when and in what context has the United States government ever supported national liberation in the Third World? The record of the United States is one of being the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including European ones... Why then would the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain.

"The United States has had a consistent policy since World War II of fighting all regimes across the Third World who insist on controlling their national resources, whether it be land, oil, or other valuable minerals. This extends from Iran in 1953 to Guatemala in 1954 to the rest of Latin America all the way to present-day Venezuela. Africa has fared much worse in the last four decades, as have many countries in Asia. Why would the United States support nationalist regimes in the Arab world who would nationalise natural resources and stop their pillage by American capital absent the pro-Israel lobby also remains a mystery unexplained by these studies."

You're in Oregon 29.Jan.2013 15:43

J. Garand

A lot of you who move to Portland, your Portlandia, don't seem to understand you're in Oregon. Oregon is a big square western state of mountains, and deserts, shotguns and pickup trucks. Each influx of hipster yuppie kids with liberal ideas don't displace the spirit of Oregon. We're still here, on Hawthorn and 23rd, and all across the city and state.

Did you know your Multnomah County Sheriff is among the Sheriffs all across the country who have taken a public stance against any new gun control measures? He won't be enforcing anything that even Congress passes.

If Bush announced the PATRIOT Act the way Feinstein and Obama announced their gun control we'd have seen more resistance but we didn't know the specifics and most Americans had their myths turned upside down. A lot of you probably don't remember pre-9/11 America. It made a lot of Americans feel like victims, but we had it coming to us for a long time. We've destroyed entire nations and slaughtered countless people, and were shocked to lose a few buildings in New York as a result.

A lot of Americans are dishonest to themselves about a lot of things. The recent gun control debates is just highlighting the difference between those sided with the political establishment and those of us who left binary dualities for a larger truth. We don't want to fight about it, but we do have that larger truth to fight for. You won't see much of a suicide rate in fighters fighting for something real.

Well, maybe that was Vietnam, that fighting for nothing. Maybe fighting over nothing was easier than soldiers today who are being ordered to fight for evil and corporations.

But back to the point, you have been living around guns for a long time. This may not make you safer, but you are still living around them. I won't tell you guns are "safe" because they are not. It would defeat the purpose of guns if they were safe. In return, don't tell me the world is safe, or would be safe or safer without guns. You are not safe and never were. If life were safe it would defeat the whole purpose of life. There's no need to make it more dangerous or threatening, and so I am outraged by the PATRIOT Act.

And if the PATRIOT Act or any other overstepping "Law" creeps too far into the range of my garden, my outrage is backed up with a battle rifle.

You're in Cascadia 29.Jan.2013 17:09


@Garand - Don't be so melodramatic brother, both Iraq and Vietnam were fought for evil and corporations. My friend, just read "War is a Racket" by General Butler, he explains that even World War 1 was fought for these reasons. I think recent veterans are just more aware of why their fighting due to the internet. No idea if veterans are ending themselves more now or before, I understand the current rate is 18 per day - but there was a lot more veterans back in the late 60's and early 70's.

Also, there's plenty of pistol packing homeboy thugs in Portlandia. It's only small sections of this town that naively believe their community is disarmed. People from Gresham cross 82nd street, and people in North cross south of Killingsworth. A lot of those folks are carrying guns, people are carrying guns around this town all the time. Hell, a gangster looking dude the other day asked me for a smoke downtown, he had a gold necklace around his neck with a big pistol emblem hanging in the middle. "Nice necklace" I told him with a smile, if that guy wasn't packing, one of his friends was - and so was I.

And, guns do make us safer - they have a deterrent effect on crime - and this is why I suspect so my Law Enforcement are NOT going to support gun legislation.

Lots of information about how guns make us safer here:  http://bit.ly/11XsYS3 (pdf)

-- If weapons were banned in American homes, the violent crime rate would rise by at least 9.4% due to an increase in home invasions.

--"... researchers estimated that in the previous 12 months, there were approximately 1,896,842 incidents in which a householder retrieved a firearm but did not see an intruder. There were an estimated 503,481 incidents in which the armed householder did see the burglar, and 497,646 incidents in which the burglar was scared away by the firearm."

--"An American burglar's risk of being shot while invading an occupied home is greater than his risk of going to prison."

--"Interestingly, because burglars do not know which homes have a gun, people who do not own guns enjoy substantial free-rider benefits because of the deterrent effect from the homes that do keep arms."

--One study of convicted felons found: "39% had personally decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun. | 56% said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. | 74% agreed with the statement that "One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot."

-- "There have been 13 major surveys regarding the frequency of defensive gun use (DGU) in the modern United States. The surveys range from a low of 760,000 annually to a high of three million."

-- "In October 1966, the Orlando Police Department began conducting highly-publicized firearms safety training for women, after observing that many women were arming themselves in response to a dramatic increase in sexual assaults in the area. Orlando rapes fell by 88% from 1966 to 1967. Burglary fell by 25%. Not one of the 2,500 trained women actually ended up firing her weapon; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. ... No other U.S. city with a population over 100,000 experienced so large a percentage decrease in the number of rapes from 1966 to 1967.... That same year, rape increased by 5% in Florida and by 7% nationally."

-- "In March 1982, the Atlanta exurb of Kennesaw passed an ordinance requiring all residents (with exceptions, including conscientious objectors) to keep firearms in their homes. House burglaries fell from 65 per year to 26, and to 11 the following year."

These are just data-points about crime. There's an interesting element that I think has never been studied on how private firearm ownership effects government abuse. A single person with an AR-15 is a very dangerous thing, so is, for that matter, a rattle snake. It's best not to poke, prod, and make rattle snakes angry. Gun ownership has an equal deterrent effect against crime as it does government tyranny. Obviously firearms are not regularly used against political officials for political purposes, but you can be damn sure that every politico had a reality check after Giffords was shot. Politicians have much to fear from a pissed off constituent with an AR-15. Just to be clear, I don't think Gifford's assassination attempt was particularly political, and I think it's kind of sad that there's not more political assassinations considering the rhetoric that goes around. I think of that guy on youtube who declared "I'm going to start killing people!" Yeah, hyper-militant fucko can't even keep his goddamn mouth shut, what a poser.

I think I'm especially lucky to have family in rural Oregon. I was born in Portland, but I spent my summertime shooting 22's and playing paintball. I feel sorry for these kids in Whiteonlyville in Tron and SE. Those communities are going to eat each other bathsalts-style when they run out of SSRI pills. This anti-gun attitude is almost exclusively limited to urban areas where people actually believe the police are there to help. The cognitive disconnect between the anti-authority crowd who also favor gun control is astounding.

you again 30.Jan.2013 15:36


There are Jewish conservatives who agree with you. Bizarely enough they'd even agree with you when it came to your commie bating. But the kicker is is that there are Jewish radicals who don't support 'gun control.' But as it stands, when people like you say things like this, people like me say "let's not arm antisemites," and then proceed to copy and past and email your articles to Jewish conservatives who say "backing the wrong horse switch bets switch bets now.". Jews are for gun control, because most Jews are liberal. I'm sure Asian Americans, Muslim Americans, Arab Americans, and any other group of solidly consistent liberal Americans are probably going to feel the same way. Get off the Jews. Put some pants on brush your fucking teeth go out in the world and talk to one. Believe it or not, they're really just white people who wear funny hats ocassionally. But when I read this, I get scared...of you, personally. You. Why would I support arming an antisemite?

@Fidelity 30.Jan.2013 16:12

J. Garand

I will check that book out, thanks.

While we're recommending books, have you read "What It Is Like To Go To War" by Karl Marlantes? I think it's a must read for all vets. Everyone else too.

Jews? 30.Jan.2013 17:13


@guy who still can't use a handle (or should I just refer to you as ... ... ?): Just to throw in an alternate data point - I can agree that most Jewish people I know are more or less "liberal" in 8th-grade civic class sense, but many of them are still owners of weapons. There was a zine circulating this town for a while called American Gun Culture Report that looked at firearm ownership within the liberal community. You should see if you can find a copy, it was really, really good stuff. Firearms ownership has never been a divisive "left vs right" issue, like all Red vs Blue, it's entirely manufactured to limit your own cognitive abilities and prevent you from working with people. Republicans have sat on the throne and passed gun regulations too, don't forget.

Also, if you are afraid of people like "nota911er", what are you going to do, as an individual, to mitigate that threat? Call the cops if he comes around knocking? Pick up a baseball bat? Just curious... .

@ J. Garand - Thanks man. I like to look at negative reviews on Amazon.com in order to see how successfully the book pissed people off. After reading a couple of the 1-star reviews, this looks like a good seller. Off to the book store! Cheers brother.

@Fidelity 30.Jan.2013 22:14


Yeah genuis, I kind of made the point that Jews are split on gun control issues. I don't support gun control personally, or at least state mandated non participatory gun control but rhetorically speaking this person is basing his arguments off of antisemitism. Pure antisemitism.

But it doesn't matter because this is a neo nazi troll. They're going to exploit this movement like they did the immigration debate and in many places the tea party movement. They're just being more subtle about it here.

backtrack 31.Jan.2013 09:56


I just re read this, and although neo nazis are definitely an element and are going to be in thks debate (obviously for exploitative purposes,) I do not believe the author is a nazi. Just an imbocile.

uh-huh 31.Jan.2013 15:10


Sorry, sometimes I just skip right over certain posts, especially if they have the trifecta of keywords I ignore: "Chris Hedges", "911", and "antisemitism" - I even gave up reading the OP's article because it was too long and it started to suck, then I skipped to the bottom and it was clearly just insane rants.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say "... basing his arguments off of antisemitism. Pure antisemitism." Maybe you mean antizionism? If so, here's a kicker: antizionism does not equal antisemitism. One is against a nation, the other is against a class of religious people. I don't really give a shit if you think I'm wrong, it's just the way I feel, and it's pretty obvious that some people use accusations of antisemitism to suppress dialog about the religious nation-state of Israel and the oppression they cause. The more you use that word, the less effect it really has. So, when you come across someone who is a pure neo-Nazi, who actually wants Jews to die because they're Jews, and you call them an "antisemite" - when you SCREAM that they're an "antisemite" - no one will give a shit, because you've been screaming that at everyone for years. The same goes with calling people "Nazi", moron. Do you know how many jokes your mom knows about Nazis? Plenty, because that word is a joke now.

Save your words for when they're important, and pick up a thesaurus dude.