01/06/13

The Great American Novel

Sorry this is so long, but I got carried away. I Promise I won't write about guns again, unless they really piss me off again.

I grow weary of discussing gun control. I truly do. I started back in the 1970’s when I was the rabid liberal and thought all guns should be taken out of the hands of the public. I took it up again in the 80’s, with a somewhat different perspective and conclusion. And by the 90’s I was completely caught up in the controversy along with the rest of the good folks in this country. This debate has continued, with some increase and decrease since then, with a considerable growth in volume and ferocity. And in case you haven’t noticed, the subject has surfaced again.

I’ve learned some things along the way. In these past 40 years I’d hope I learned something. I’ve been taught a few things, been indoctrinated about a few others, and have sought out information when it has been available, not being one to always believe that which others have wanted me to think. I don’t claim any absolute truths here. One thing I have learned is that there are few absolute truths in this world. In fact, the most important thing I have learned is that when an absolute truth is presented to me, I’d best check it out, for guess what…absolute truths often have the very least truth attached to them.

Going back to my mind in the 70’s, I see an optimist, a sheltered, reasonably well educated and socialized young professional, who watched and read the news, discussed issues with friends.  Presumably I was an asset to the community. For instance, I voted for Dianne Feinstein a couple of times, for the Sierra Club liked her, and she had pushed through the preservation of large tracts of wild country I thought worth saving. And she had argued for a handgun ban in San Francisco, and everything I had heard from my friends and seen in the newspapers and on TV had taught me that handguns were pure evil, the scourge of mankind, and of course they should be banned.

It was only much later, when I learned that Ms Feinstein had a concealed carry permit in those days, and this was because she felt she was entitled to protection. Then later when she got those armed guards, those armed guards that she still has, I began to wonder again about her honesty. For she was trying to disarm people who thought they also needed protection, but these were those who could not afford armed guards and didn’t have the influence in government to get most anything they wanted, like the people in the ruling elite. People like Ms Feinstein.

Later, I discovered that that bit of land in Utah that Ms Feinstein managed to preserve from mining, scenic land that I wished protected, just happened to hold a precious mineral much in demand in this country. Imagine my surprise to find that the mining company in Southeast Asia that supplied this mineral to our country was owned by her wealthy husband. Excuse me for being human here, but I kinda lost faith in the lady senator’s honesty around then.

Back in the 70’s it was expected that if you were a liberal, you were opposed to handguns in the hands of regular folks. Handguns were just for killing. No other purpose. They were more dangerous than most anything on earth. Kids picked em up and blew their little brains out every day. Only idiots and savages owned them, and all the rest of us were put at risk as a consequence. 

Heck, when Barney Miller came home from the police station on TV, the first thing he did, before kissing his lovely stay at home wife, was to unload his service revolver and lock it in that little drawer way up by the ceiling, and then lock those nasty bullets in the other little drawer way up over there, because even though they had no children, no grandchildren, no day care children in their apartment, and he didn’t get raging drunk every night and beat his wife, the TV made it clear that a handgun was so dangerous that if you didn’t lock it up un-loaded, somebody was going to get killed, and that really hurts.

Politicians, like Ms Feinstein told me that handguns were worthless and dangerous. So did the TV news, the newspapers, my friends, musicians and movie stars, and my teachers. And there was not a voice within hearing that even suggested any other view. This would be the indoctrination part. It was very effective.

I voted once to ban handguns in California. I thought that “Saturday Night Specials” should all be rounded up and melted. Imagine, an inexpensive killing machine like a “Saturday Night Special” could still be bought in California, and all it was good for was killing people.

It was only later that I learned that the proposed ban on “Saturday Night Specials” was essentially an attempt to disarm poor Black people down in the bad neighborhoods. It was little more than another example of the institutional racism I had thought I had been fighting for all those years. 

Ya see….there was a piece to the puzzle of life that I had missed out on for many years. It’s a little known fact, mostly ignored, or suppressed, depending upon one’s view of life I guess, whereby the use of a handgun to defend against crime is actually a common event. You won’t hear about this in the newspapers or the TV news. The politicians won’t mention this. Movie stars and musicians often pass right by this notion. Teachers will argue against even the thought. And your friends will look at you in total disbelief if you so much as mention it. Heck, somebody will email me tomorrow to take them off this weekly little gab session because I bring this up.

But some people actually think that a handgun in the house is more likely to help you defend yourself from a crime than it is to harm you or anyone you know. 

Blasphemy!

This is a minority view. I’ll concede that. The Department of Justice, the federal version, who keep track of the misuse of firearms by criminals and have a long history of downplaying any positive aspect of firearm ownership, estimated that firearms have been used to prevent crime as often as 110,000 times a year. Other than the usual “zero times” you are likely to get if you ask the media, or the likes of Ms Feinstein, this is about the lowest estimate you can find. One guy set out to survey random people to prove that defensive use of firearms is a myth came up with a result he didn’t expect, an estimate of defense against criminal attack… 2.5 million times a year. This on the plus side in case you are wondering.  This author was surprised. Others with different methodology came up with only .75 million.

Don’t look for this information in the Media or from Ms Feinstein.

They will argue against it, and have. Shortly after such numbers have been released, the Media and politicians have asked all the gun ban organizations to get their take on these numbers. Each and every one of the gun ban organizations has lambasted the conclusions of these studies. They are so sure of themselves that they rejected the conclusions often without even reading the studies.

I know, my paranoia here, right? Well…look into this. Read Gary Kleck and John Lott. Then check into the responses from the gun control advocates. It’s rather shameful.  Then come back and tell me I’m paranoid. Sure, we can argue the numbers, just how many times the good guys win, but the numbers are pretty solid that it’s mostly the good guys.

The next time a gun control issue shows up in the Media, such as the coverage of the recent school murders, take quiet note of the number of gun control advocates consulted and quoted in the stories. Note the slant of the story itself. Note the horror in the tone of the Media content. Note the Media editorials. And then notice how any opposition to the gun control stance is handled. If any shows at all, it will receive fewer words in print, less time on the air, and often you will not hear much more than a sound bite or two, and then a synopsis of the pro firearm stance by one or more opponents of such a stance. Our Media consults the opponents of firearm ownership to paraphrase the arguments that they oppose, rather than presenting to the public those arguments. 

Notice the nearly total absence of reports of crimes prevented or stopped by citizens with firearms. Note the near complete absence of reports of mass murders prevented or stopped by citizens with firearms. And try to avoid the temptation to disregard this request with some response that you have never heard of such defenses. You have just made my point.

You will notice that I am no longer the gun hating liberal I was in 1972. And for some reason, I am far more skeptical of politicians and the Media.

Consider the discussion about “Cop Killer Bullets” some time ago. Two guys invented a bullet intended for law enforcement use. Normal handgun bullets often deflect when fired into car windshields and doors. A denser metal bullet would penetrate better, and in the hands of the police could prove useful in urban settings. Somebody asked the developers if such a bullet might defeat the body armor that the police were beginning to wear, and from this the notion of a “Cop Killer Bullet” was born. 

Politicians and the Media smelled blood in the water, and turned a non-issue into the next great threat to civilization. NBC I believe, decided to televise a special intended to raise alarm among the general public, and over police protest, proceeded to give a primer to criminals on how to kill a police officer in a gun fight. The cops were thrilled. Politicians took the nonsense and ran with it, demanding a ban on every cartridge in America that could defeat the body armor of the day. In other word, virtually every hunting rifle cartridge. Some people objected to this draconian measure. They were of course, vilified in the Media. Hunters were all branded as cop killers.

The argument raged between people who saw this as a way to render so many firearms worthless, and the citizens who thought this un-necessary. Eventually, a law limiting the actual armor piercing bullet in question to use only by police was written. (In case you care, the dreaded demon known as the NRA helped congress write this sane law, which passed easily)

Oh, and after all the fuss, the sum total of police officers killed by “Cop Killer Bullets” remains at zero. And they haven’t been manufactured in years.

Mel Gibson used a “Cop Killer Bullet” in one of his movies a few years ago, after they were no longer made. Blew a hole through a bulldozer blade to kill the bad guy at the end of the movie. Clever trick, if a bit exaggerated. Mel doesn’t much like guns. He has made a fortune misusing them in his movies, but he doesn’t want us citizens to own any. He talks often of disarming all of us. 

Imagine that.

Mayor Blumberg mentioned “Cop Killer Bullets” the other day too. He thinks we should ban them. He doesn’t care that they do not exist. He has a few billion dollars and the ear of the Media, so he can say anything he wants. He presumably gets along well with Ms Feinstein as long as they are trying to disarm people.

Mel has used and misused machine guns to make a fortune in his movies. In a movie the bad guy with an Uzi sporting a thirty round magazine hoses down the neighborhood for a minute or two, in slow motion sometimes, burning up a few thousand rounds without reloading. The bad guy generally holds the Uzi with one hand while cradling his beer with the other. Mel fires back with an automatic rifle holding twenty rounds, launching back a few thousand bullets, blowing up cars and chopping down buildings.

I’m pretty convinced this is where the notion of “spraying bullets” came to be attached to the “Assault Weapons” ban idea. From stupid nonsense in movies. I’ve fired an Uzi. Legally I might add. I have some firearms experience, and yet I could not make a thirty round magazine last more than a second. It goes empty that fast. Course I didn’t try, for if you use that weapon like a hose, the recoil causes the muzzle to rise to the ceiling if you really don’t know what you are doing, and really knowing what you are doing doesn’t include holding the weapon with only one hand. “Spraying Bullets” from a machine gun is a movie myth. And by any definition, "Assault Weapons" are not machine guns.

The last “Assault Weapon” ban was kinda funny, looking back on it. Ms Feinstein is deadly serious with her “New Assault Weapon” ban. But we have to see what will come of this new one.

The last “Assault Weapon” ban left us gun owners a bit confused. I know a bunch of people who are extremely educated in firearms, and yet not one has ever owned, used, or seen an “Assault Weapon”. At least they don’t think they have. Sounds a bit weird, but firearms owners didn’t invent “Assault Weapons”. The Media and the politicians did. Maybe these folks know what an “Assault Weapon” might be, but the rest of us don’t. 

Mostly, it appears that this new “Assault Weapon” ban will again be a “whatever we want it to be” definition reminiscent of the “Cop Killer Bullet”. And since the Media will be educating the public on how they should view “Assault Weapons” this will become interesting. And since Ms Feinstein is pushing the deal again, honesty shall not likely rear its ugly head.

Last time, the Media chimed in with their usual distortions and lies. On the TV news you could watch discussion of the “Assault Weapon” ban with machine guns firing in the background and the spokespersons from all the gun ban organizations talking about how horrible these mythical weapons are, how they are the guns of choice among the gangs roving the inner city neighborhoods, the source of the pile of dead gang members clogging the streets, and the scourge of civilization. And the gun ban folks got to paraphrase the argument they expected back from the spokespersons opposed to the “Assault Weapons” ban, like they always do. All while we tried to figure out just what firearms they were talking about.

Ultimately, they settled on a buffet of firearms, some grenade launchers that were already illegal, machine guns that have been illegal since 1934, and a variety of models judged solely by what they looked like.

The Media propaganda blitz continued for a while. Pistols became “high-powered “even though they weren’t. “Military Style” became style, for like the models strutting down the walkway in designer gowns, appearance was everything. Suddenly a black colored rifle was more dangerous than it had been the day before. Twenty-two caliber rifles also became “High-powered”, and if they had magazines that “Nobody Needs To Hunt Deer” we had to remind them that such caliber rifles were not legal for deer in most states because they are not powerful enough for that.

The “Assault Weapons” ban didn’t remove a single firearm from the street. It did limit the sale of some for a short while, and some were no longer sold, but everything they called an “Assault Weapon” that existed before the law passed was still there when the law expired ten years later. In fact, virtually identical firearm continued to be sold throughout the ten years of the ban. Lots of them. A few cosmetic changes made them legal, which suited the spirit of the law. It was all about appearances, after all.

Ms Feinstein is making the rounds as we speak, touting the reduction in crime brought about by her first “Assault Weapons” ban. And presumably she is talking up the carnage she claims has washed across the nation since the ban expired. Ms Feinstein has an active imagination, but her pronouncements are echoed by the Media and those spokespersons from the gun ban groups. 

Crime rates, including murder rates, which presumably would be influenced by an “Assault Weapons” ban have been falling steadily since the very early 90’s. The number of firearms in the hands of American citizens has climbed consistently since then. The number of firearms identical to the banned “Assault Weapons” grew by the thousands each year of the ban. An estimated three million are in private hands. And crime rates and murder rates fell. Most city police department don’t track the numbers of crimes committed with “Assault Weapons” because they see so few. Which hasn’t changed since the onset of the ban, and hasn’t changed since the ban expired in 2004. But Ms Feinstein shouts that the ban has been so very effective, and its expiration an unmitigated disaster. Ms Feinstein is a bit full of it. But I guess you don’t have to believe me. I admit that I have an agenda.

As before, it is difficult to get much information from the people opposing the new “Assault Weapons” ban. It’s not that we don’t have much to say, but it definitely is in line with the influence of Media and politicians. Control of information is critical to the passage of the next “Assault Weapons” ban. And if anyone wants an opposing view, they will have to work to find it.

I was completely indoctrinated back in the 1970’s, and today I argue with people similarly “educated”. To them, I am an idiot because they have never seen or heard anything that opposes the point of view they’ve been fed. They point to the fall in crime and go…”SEE!” Dianne was right!

Well, lots of things probably resulted in the drop in crime. A ban that never actually happened doesn’t seem to be one of these. And heaven help ya if you mention all those statistics that suggest that concealed carry permits in all those states just might have contributed.

Oh, I know. We’re right back to how nasty those handguns are, and how they shouldn’t be in the hands of citizens. The studies quoted by Media and politicians show that those guns are a bazillion times more likely to kill the baby in its crib than to defend the people in the house. EVERYBODY knows this!!!

OK sorry. I’ll go back to my corner and put on the dunce cap. I’ve other statistics, but the folks who run the gun ban organizations all say these aren’t true. The Media echoes them, and the politicians prattle on.

Thirty nine states now have concealed carry. Some for twenty years. Five million carry permits have been issued. Crime and murder rates go down, faster than the trend already mentioned, and the numbers all began changing at the onset of the CCW permit laws, and continue to this day as more permits are issued. States without CCW don’t see the same changes. Not one state has even considered rescinding the permits. The number of accidents involving permitted people is nearly zero. The number of crimes committed by permitted people is nearly zero. The number of murders is so much lower than the general public that it would amaze and confuse the Media and politicians who predicted a slaughter. 

The gun control groups have looked at these statistics, and a rare few have actually acknowledged their results. Mostly however, they have chosen to attack the messengers rather than address their message, or to cherry pick and cook the numbers to suit their preconceived notions, rather than let the numbers speak. Liars can, it appears, figure. 

I won’t suggest that CCW permits are the sole source of the improvement, but I will suggest that the chaos and carnage predicted for states that adopt CCW by the Media, politicians, and gun ban spokespeople have not come to pass. And I will suggest that those Media, politicians and gun ban spokespeople might prosper from looking at the rise in crime and murder that seem to accompany most of the gun control measures they have foisted upon the citizens. For that would be kind of embarrassing.

Of course, when a gun control law fails to do what it was intended to do, the Media, politicians, and gun ban groups have a predictable response. They need more laws. And as long as the indoctrination succeeds, they will get them.

The numbers are there, but you will have to do your own work to find them. Subject to interpretation, certainly. I’m not talking absolute truths here, but guess what…the Media, politicians, and gun ban groups all spout absolute truths. And the best way to swallow absolute truth is not to ever question it. But is that the best way?

Mea Culpa

Boy, do I be dumb!

Last column I referred to the sexual predator list of names and addresses as Angies List. My feeble brain later remembered that in California it is Megans list.

angies list simply lists whether you liked the sexual predator or wouldn't recommend him.

silly me

12/30/12

I’m not from New York. I do know where it is on the map atlas. I know there is that big city, and then the rest of the state. I’ve driven through parts of the rest of the state, and other than noting that the folks there drive much faster than me, it seemed almost pleasant. And I’ve driven past that big city, nicking one corner just long enough to sense the insanity endemic there, and that was close enough for me. As you no doubt recall, I don’t do big cities.

Because of the entertainment media and the news media I do know a fair amount about the big city. Large portions of the e&n media live and work there. From outside looking in it seems that the people who habituate there pretty much think it is the center of the world and the whole rest of this country is something else, something less, not worthy of attention. This is a view no doubt fostered by the e&n media, for they clearly act this way. And those of us who live elsewhere just kinda throw that whole lot who live in that big city into one big hopper, and we ignore that too.

I wouldn’t know a Bronx from a Queens if presented with one. This makes me something of an idiot to the people who live in their world, but then they might not know how to paddle a kayak down the Snake River. Maybe that makes us even. So when I heard about The Journal News it didn’t register with me. But I’m sure those folks living near the big city are familiar with it.

What little research I’ve done suggests The Journal News is an insignificant wannabe struggling to survive in the suburbs of the big city, in the shadow of the media giants, kinda like the paper I used to write for. They clearly have their point of view, which they endeavor to deliver to their readers. And I’ll venture they wouldn’t print my stuff either, for I stubbornly annoy editors who don’t tolerate the way I think.

Anyway, it was The Journal News that thought it important to print the names and home addresses of every handgun permit holder in some of those counties bordering the big city. Don’t know which counties, but for this discussion it really doesn’t matter. Some have asked of the paper why they might do such a thing, and their response seems to be that they think the folks in the area are interested in knowing who living among them might own a firearm. And since they are rabidly opposed to nice folks owning guns, this is no surprise.

One issue that pops up here is the simple reality that many such permit holders are judges, district attorneys, retired cops and others who might not want to let certain people know where they live, what with the fondness certain people might have for exacting revenge upon the civil servants and their families who did their job by putting said certain people away for a bit after certain people committed their various crimes.

It’s harder than heck to get a handgun permit in that area of the country. Ya practically have to be married to the mayor to get one. You certainly have to prove you might need one because your life is at risk without one. You can bet the permit holders have been vetted thoroughly before such permit was issued. In other words, it’s likely they are not a collective of dangerous criminals.

Maybe, just maybe, these people on the list whose lives have now been put at further risk…they might object to this list being published. 

But the way I see this, it doesn’t seem like The Journal News cares about this part. No, I expect they simply thought they could get some of the locals stirred up, have them mark those homes of their neighbors, maybe picket with signs, throw rocks through their windows, write letters to the editors, and of course nag their politicians for further gun control, for once this Amber’s List of gun owners gets out there, panic will spread through the community as those poor vulnerable people realize that they have been living under the unfathomable risk of a nearby firearm.

You remember Amber’s List. You can go on-line to that list and find out where the rapists, sexual predators, child molesters, and kiddie porn addicts live. You know, all those folks who shouldn’t be out in public but who are because like so many other violent and nasty folks, our system of justice likes to simply let them go to prey upon us at their leisure. Decent people like to know where such vermin live.

What you see happening here in New York is real simple. Law abiding upstanding un-threatening handgun permit people are now cast by the media into the same light as rapists, sexual predators, child molesters, and kiddie porn addicts. The Journal News appears to suggest that they are just as dangerous. So the paper is simply warning their neighbors of this horrible risk.

And…if you are even half as paranoid as me, don’t you wonder if this newspaper would be delighted if some judge or retired cop they outed gets murdered in his home, in his sleep, simply so they could say…”SEE! Keeping a gun in the house didn’t make him any safer!” For of course, like the vast mass of media in this country, this paper fervently believes it must teach the people that guns in the home are inherently evil, so the paper likely has systematically sensationalized criminal misuse of guns and yet has actively hidden any evidence of successful defense of one’s home and life with those nasty handguns kept in the good people’s houses.

That’s how you influence public opinion if you own a newspaper, you know. By manipulating that which you choose to report. And I’m betting that like most of the media, they don’t want the opposition to be able to answer back when attacked about gun ownership. They might paraphrase and then ridicule the opposition point of view, but they rarely allow anything approaching equal time to rebut their attacks.

I’ve told this story before, but it is illustrative. Picture the arid desolation of Nevada. I was with a small group of desert aficionados camped amid the quiet beauty, and the subject of guns came up. That NRA decal on the window of my pickup sometimes does this. It’s kinda the red cloak in front of the liberal bull.

One woman asked if I had brought any firearms along on this trip and I assured her that I had, and that they were securely stored out of harm’s way.  She admonished me, “Keep your guns away from my car, for I don’t want my car to blow up.”

I didn’t want to let on that I didn’t figure my firearms were going to climb out of their cases in my truck and start shooting her car when I wasn’t looking. But I did mention that the only time people firing guns cause cars to blow up in massive fireballs, flying in slow motion through the air, was in the movies. Many things happen in movies that are not real, or even possible. But maybe this lends some insight into the minds of those movie stars who think our benevolent government should confiscate all the guns. It certainly was well ingrained into this woman’s mind by the entertainment media.

Another well programmed woman on another desert trip ran away screaming when she saw the cartridge case from a fifty caliber Browning machine gun that we found in the Mojave Desert in an area where Gen. Patton had exercised his troops before they left to battle the Nazis in North Africa. That sixty year old piece of expended brass was no more dangerous than an empty coffee cup, but it had something to do with guns, and thus it terrified this poor woman. Not sure what level of indoctrination had so modified this woman’s brain, but it certainly worked. No doubt the media had a hand in this too.

And there is no question whatsoever how fervently these two women would want to see our caring politicians clear the country of the menace of citizens owning firearms.

I can remember well the wind up to the last “assault weapons” ban. Every TV network had their input. They’d do a voice over about the horrors of these mythical weapons, and then they’d show a video of a machinegun firing a few hundred rounds on full automatic. I believe this is where the fanciful notion of “assault weapons” spraying bullets came from. Or maybe it was those movies where the guy with an Uzi fires off a few thousand rounds from a thirty round magazine, and he never has to reload. You know, kinda like a garden hose. None of this had the remotest relevance to any discussion of the guns our government eventually “banned”, but it did influence a lot of people to favor the ban.

I’ve yet to discuss the “assault weapon” issue with anyone who didn’t ask me why I thought people needed a machine gun. (Machine guns have been illegal since 1934. None of the firearms these folks now classify as an “assault weapon” are machine guns. That’s just one of those little lies the media, and certain politicians need to resort to in order to sway public opinion.)

The media has also spread false notions about “Saturday Night Specials, Cop Killer Bullets, Sniper Rifles, Plastic Guns, High Powered Military Style Weapons”. Such vacuous titles are designed to demonize firearms, to make them seem far more dangerous, and to single out each class of firearms in turn in the incremental process intended to disarm the nation.

In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, a fresh media attack on the 100 million firearms owners who are not criminals has surfaced. Now, according to the media, the blame for the slaughter of innocent children by a madman belongs to every law-abiding firearm owner in America. It’s time to demonize you and me. We are on the new Amber’s List for gun owners.

The last “assault weapon ban” lasted ten years. It was so cleverly worded that it did not take a single weapon off “the street”. All those “assault weapons” were still out there, not killing anybody. Because of the “ban” a handful of firearms could no longer be sold to supplant those already out there, but they had previously been purchased in such small numbers that this hardly mattered. Many other manufacturers simply changed one or two cosmetic features that did not affect their firearms’ function, and these remade no-longer-assault-weapons continued to flow into the marketplace due to their popularity with the decent law abiding folks. 

Senator Feinstein likes to claim that the former ban lowered murder rates, but her logic is a mite flawed. Hard to imagine how no reduction whatsoever in the number of firearms that she would call “assault weapons” might lower the murder numbers, but I’ll take that as a fail on her part. In reality, the cosmetically legal firearms that continued to be sold by the thousands, to law abiding enthusiasts, didn’t mess at all with the murder rates that had been falling before the “ban” and continued to fall despite the addition of thousands of these guns to the population.

 Oh, and when the “assault weapons” ban expired in 2004, nothing changed. The predicted bloodbath out there in the streets has not happened.

So of course, Senator Feinstein is ready with her new “assault weapons” ban. This one, among other nonsense, will turn my little 22LR target rifle into an assault rifle, because of the way it looks. When I stop laughing, I’ll have to fight her on this one. My rifle hasn’t even been fired on the range yet, but she is out to get it.

Because of the way it looks.

The media will support this. They always do. They support this with distortion and outright lies, and by stifling any notion that firearms in the hands of the decent people do far more to suppress crime and violence than they do to foster it. There is considerable evidence to support this statement, but you won’t see any sign of this evidence in the e&n media. You have to search out this truth on your own.

All this is in the shadow of the horrible tragedy in Connecticut. The media doesn’t care that none of the gun control laws they support to date would have stopped this mad man. The media doesn’t care that this mad man could have used any number of common household tools to kill 6 year old children trapped in a room in the ten to twenty minutes he had to play with before the police could arrive to stop him. The media doesn’t care that had one teacher broken a stupid law and had carried a firearm to work that day, she might have stopped this pathetic loser before he could carry out his heinous task. Such has happened before, but of course most have not heard of this. The media suppresses almost all of these notions. They refuse to report it.

“Whenever there is a shooting, somebody always wants to punish the people who didn’t do it.” I didn’t make this up. Don’t know off hand who did. I merely stole it because it is so very true.

No, the media views its job here to be fanning the fear and loathing of people beyond any reason so that when the politicians try to disarm the citizens of this country, the well indoctrinated sheep will urge them on. Which explains why The Journal News is printing the Angie’s List of the names and addresses of legitimate gun owners. Like the individual classes of firearms, this newspaper is attempting to demonize all of these people.

I’m at a loss for words here. I guess if you want to see lies and distortion drive this country, then you will reap that which you sow. I’ll be arguing the other way if you need to ask. For most every gun control law that has come into being in my lifetime has either done absolutely nothing to inconvenience criminals, or it has actually raised crime numbers. “Reasonable Gun Control” does nothing to deter or render harmless a criminal. It simply punishes the good folks.

Don’t know how you feel about this, but I don’t see it as a good thing. The media, on the other hand, is trying its hardest so you don’t find out about how often they distort reality. If you are interested in the truth, perhaps you should seek out other sources of information that are not as corrupt as our mass media.

By the way…the “journalist” responsible for publishing that list of gun permit owners is a fellow named Dwight R. Worley. Somebody dug up his address and posted it on line. I won’t be doing that, for that would be a despicable thing to do.

Oh, and some have reported that ole Dwight owns a 357 magnum revolver, with a gun permit. Presumably for his own protection. No fool here, but if this is true….

Can you spell hypocrite? 

I’m sending this to The Journal News. Not that they will appreciate it, but because if you are going to take a shot at somebody, they have a right to know. I like to think this involves a degree of integrity. I don’t know what they might consider integrity.

12/23/12

Welcome to my nightmare. Names have been changed to protect the innocent, if you can find any innocent.

Prohibition. You remember Prohibition. Demon Rum was destroying America, ruining lives, wrecking families. Wasn’t just plain ole rum. Nope, had to be Demon Rum. Demonize rum to make it seem worse than reality. So said a vocal minority. Squeaky wheels. To save America we had to ban the alcoholic beverage. 

One by one the loudest noises bent states to their way of thinking. A Constitutional amendment written, and soon the War on Booze was the law of the land. They didn’t call it that, but that’s what it was. 

People woke up one day to find that a freedom they had taken for granted had been rescinded by fiat. And by this I don’t mean junk cars.

Naturally, when faced with such a rule, folks still wanted to drink.  Once confounded with stupid rules who isn’t tempted to run contrary to them?

Breweries, distilleries, wineries shut down. Taverns closed. Stores ceased the sale of alcoholic beverages. Local cops and Feds closed down the occasional illegal seller or smuggler. Supply dried up. Demand however remained inelastic. Thus, the price of alcoholic beverage rose. Econ 101.

The profit motive is a powerful thing. The most enterprising merchants on earth, criminals found a need and filled it. Monstrously powerful, wealthy criminal organizations grew out of this War on Booze. These were folks who liked money and power more than rules, mobsters and politicians, crooked cops, and a bunch of wannabees.  They brought booze into the country by the boatload and distributed it with remarkable efficiency. And people drank more than they did when it was legal. All of this is human nature.

Some people found themselves getting killed by the dark side of this phenomenon. All manner of murder and mayhem was the order of the day. And the mobsters who did these murders grew most wealthy and most powerful and they shared the wealth to corrupt the police and the politicians. 

Some, like the Kennedy patriarchy, eventually gained a degree of legitimacy and generations of political power, if not respectability. 

The Chicago mobs bought the entire government of that state and haven’t given it up to this day despite the routine arrest and conviction of most every politician in the state. 

Prohibition was eventually repealed, but we the people have been paying the price for the unintended consequences of the War on Booze ever since. Because the criminals who had prospered from delivering booze had lost their market, so they simply shifted to a new line of work. Drugs.

We didn’t really see much of a War on Drugs until the wealthy white folks discovered cocaine. Heroin had been around, but mostly poor and dark skinned people partook, and nobody cared about them. Marijuana was around for ages, but garnered little attention. Then suddenly, people who mattered were squandering tons of money on the white powder, and since money attracts those same unseemly criminal types, a problem arose. 

When the War on Drugs began in earnest, the price of cocaine of course went further up, and so the criminals got nastier, and wealthier, just like they did during Prohibition.

Laws against the transport, sale, and use of drugs in turn became far more stringent. The actual use of such drugs hardly killed anybody, but the driving of the commerce of drugs into the welcoming hands of the criminals eventually got scads of people killed. The mothers in the ‘hood watched their sons dying in the streets as the young men engaged in the commerce and competition surrounding drugs. The mothers blamed it on crack cocaine, and they demanded more stringent laws. Demon Crack Cocaine. It’s worse than the other, so go after it. 

Later, when those more stringent laws landed most of a generation of young men from the ‘hood in prison, these same mothers complained that the laws were institutional racism designed to hurt the young men. This left the do-gooders who had listened to the mothers and wrote the laws to please them shaking their heads in frustration. And the flow of drugs into the country continued unabated.

Massive wealthy organizations that supplied the drugs corrupted many of the politicians just like the mob did during Prohibition. Some things never change.  Media generated public outcry over the rising tide of murder in the ‘hood led to the laws becoming even more harsh. Mandatory sentencing for drug possession and sale put crowds of non-violent offenders into prisons already crowded by the violent vermin that had turned the ‘hood into a war zone in order to sell those drugs. 

The non-violent folks had been handed harsh sentences, in order to win the War on Drugs. When there was no more room in the prisons, their mandatory sentences meant they had to stay, so the violent criminals were let loose to make room. Logic was carried to its illogical extreme. The criminals resumed their work, and the murders added up, and pretty soon this country looked pretty bad. Wow, we had way more murders than anybody else. What a surprise.

The War on Drugs was a fail, but the murders continued to annoy the populace. What, oh what shall we do? Murders in the ‘hood marred most every night. Drive by shootings killed innocent babies as well as criminals and annoyed the Chamber of Commerce. Something must be done.

The car most in favor for drive by shootings was the Oldsmobile Cutlass. This was an established fact, but the Cutlass was a popular seller, so they couldn’t ban it to stop drive by shootings. But wait……

Why not ban guns?

The reprobates who went around without conscience, killing competitor and innocent alike, often used guns, didn’t they? Guns by their very nature are bad, right? Everything we’ve ever been taught by listening to movie stars, rock stars, and the 6 o’clock news tells us that guns are evil and the cause of murder. That’s all they are good for…because my senator says so. That’s why people keep voting for her.

Somebody came up with actual police statistics which stated that although murder was rampant in the ‘hood, the rules telling the murderers not to use guns didn’t work. Don’t listen to that reality. Guns scare us, so therefore all the guns must go. 

Many logical arguments arrived to debunk such irrational fears, but did not assuage the ragged emotion. No argument to the contrary is worth listening to, for emotion should rule over logic every time.

In spite of massive indoctrination intended to increase people’s fear of guns, too many people, most of the people, didn’t want the ban of guns. They had many reasons, some from logic and some also from emotion. Too many people stood in the way of ridding us of the guns. Must change their minds. Let’s demonize some guns. Heck it worked before.

If the gun looks like this…it must be a Demon Gun. Tell a few lies. Tell a lot a lies. Tell them over and over again. Don’t even listen to any argument from the other side. The other side are all idiots. Everyone must think the same. Teach them to all think alike. The movie stars, the music stars, the media, the schools. Everyone teach the same. Demon Gun. Because a gun looks like this…

So one president got his law passed to rid us of dangerous looking guns. For ten years the law had no effect of the criminal use of guns. And when the law expired, again no change. But still some people harbored their irrational fear of guns. So when one horrible man used a dangerous looking gun to slaughter babies, the cry went out again. Let’s ban the guns. People knowing nothing about guns became experts overnight, all arguing against gun ownership. And the president saw the chance to disarm his subjects.

Ok. So let’s escalate the War on Guns. What do you suppose will happen?

After decades of the War on Guns, every single law restricting the law abiding people’s access or enjoyment of their firearm has failed to stop criminals from their nightly chores. Clearly more laws are needed to punish the good people for the crimes of the criminals. Now the president wants to deny every law abiding citizen their right to firearms. Yet he as actually assisted criminal access to firearms simply to make the law abiding people look bad.

Well, lots and lots of nice people have guns. They like them.  I suppose similar to that alcohol thing. Or even that marijuana thing. Maybe a hundred million citizens own guns. Now most are nice folks who follow laws, so when you compel them to surrender their guns for confiscation and destruction, lots will reluctantly comply. That bunch that doesn’t follow laws, the killers, rapists, and thieves won’t of course, but maybe someday it might filter down to them. The people who hate guns don’t much like filter down economics, but they really love filter down gun bans. Maybe eventually if they punish the innocent hard enough it will have some effect on the criminal.

Some folks will simply forget to turn in their guns. Ya know how you sometimes forget to do some things, like dentist appointments? The government will have to crack down on them. That’s what prisons are for, ya know. Fill the prisons with these miscreants, and others will be scared into turning in their guns. Getting the neighbors to turn in their neighbors to the government will become the new American way of life.

And if the prisons are too full, let loose some more murderers and rapists. Like before. I’m sure they will behave. Maybe the president will put them to work after they get out. He was a community organizer once, after all. He says he supports the Second Amendment. He will need a well-regulated militia to help keep order. Take those gang members, the murderers and such, give them nice uniforms and three weeks of training, and put them to work ferreting out the people’s guns. A constitutionally mandated militia. Who could argue with that?

That bunch that still won’t turn in their guns will be a problem. Probably need the military to smoke them out. We will need truckloads of soldiers pulling onto your street in the dark of night, house to house search for guns, families standing shivering in the streets while soldiers go through their homes, smoke filling the air from when the tear gas set the Smith’s house on fire. Nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. March dad off in handcuffs to the concentration camps when the prisons are too full. Use the militia if the soldiers refuse to shoot their own people.

Some citizens will fight back, because the guns will make then do it. Kill a bunch of them because you have to. Martial law. Suspend the Constitution. Total government control… for our own good of course. Win the War on Guns. Make this a safer country.

Welcome to the future. I’m sure somebody will be happy about this. It seems to be the plan.