Skip to content

Even Right Now, At Odds

October 2, 2015

Sheriff Opposes Gun ControlSource: US News, http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/10/01/the-latest-multiple-casualties-reported-in-oregon-shooting

Besides the pointless and unfathomable nature of these kinds of crimes, and the ever-present grief following them, something is off here. In the above news article, the sheriff (the executive officer of the immediate area) fundamentally disagrees with increased gun control—as it would be enforced, that is, as stricter laws preventing law-abiding citizens from making use of their Second Article rights—which the chief executive of the federal government immediately jumps to as a result of this, newest shooting.

Understandable in theory, perhaps, but flawed and deliberately using the emotional state of an electorate to trigger a particular response, for which he hasn’t been able to get popular support by objective and sensible argument. It also happens to be legislation in direct opposition to the Constitution, the founding document of all United States statute law. Barack Obama knows better, morally and lawfully. If he gains traction this way for gun control, the consequences on all of us are much worse than a handful of students killed by a lone nut. I’ll get back the lone nut soon.

Sympathy for the victims is one thing. Willful manipulation of a body of citizens is something else, and while no sane person thinks this kind of thing should keep happening in any numbers, Obama is dead wrong to use this as a springboard for gun control. Using the situation to further a political agenda to which the people are fundamentally opposed is reprehensible. George Bush, Jr. pulled the same bollix to pass the “Patriot” Act after 9-11, which was itself curiously comprehensive and thorough for something only just written after the fact. We regretted being simply monitored excessively by cooperating with the Patriot Act. Loss of our ability to fight for our own homes, against any possible intrusion, would be many times worse. I promise. Just ask Germany in the early 1940s.

Bear in mind, I make no direct comparisons between Obama and Adolf Hitler or American parties to the Nazis in saying this—any such similarities are categorically unavoidable and not my fault—but disarming the people was one of the things the Third Reich did to prevent them from interfering with the Fuhrer’s fascist ambitions. The Reichstag fire was used as a symbol to detriment freedom in Hitler’s Germany and look how it ended up. I don’t think Obama is a new Hitler (the Fuhrer was smarter, for one), but if we pass gun control legislation based on visceral responses to senseless acts of violence, we shall not only fail to prevent more of them—criminals disregard law, remember—but we only deliver ourselves into the hands of tyrants without the means to fight them. The Framers of our republic only just got rid of absolute authority before writing the Constitution. They meant the right to keep and bear arms to be used in the event of invasion and despotic power of government, even if it turns out to be ours.

Some have fealty to the authority for the sake of it being the authority. There’s a word for that: Kadavergehorsam. It’s German for “obedience of a cadaver.” Remember that term when you encounter the opinion those in charge must not be opposed for some Aristotelian worldview. Consider, also, the Framers wrote the right to be armed under the authority of the government they created. That means they wanted the people to be capable of resisting the government they created if necessary. If they were open to that possibility, and open to preserving that possibility even after insurrections in the early federal government of the United States, we should not be so quick to disregard that liberty because we fear the risks of such freedom. The risks of not having this freedom are much more pervasive, and much worse. Besides, the consequences we face now with these freedoms are not inherently their cost. They are because our society lacks something critical to prevent mass shootings where firearms are permitted by private ownership.

The “President” thinks letting fewer citizens arm themselves would prevent this kind of mass shooting in the future. The law enforcement officer in the area of this crime, closest to the ramifications of such legislation, is opposed to such measures. What does that tell you? It should tell you the two-faced Dronemaster is wrong, and a hypocrite. If he thinks the people shouldn’t be armed, he should stop assassinating people across the world without any attempt at due process through domestic or international law.

Obama is also factually wrong to think less guns means less crime. Look at the murder rates with firearms per capita in places where firearms are not allowed versus where they are permitted if you really think disarming the population is going to help. Obama came out of Chicago, Illinois; of all places, he should know this assumption is opposite the truth. Chicago, Illinois and Washington, D. C. have some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. The United Kingdom has a higher crime rate with firearms per capita than the United States, where no one is allowed to carry them. Switzerland has everyone armed and it has a firearm-related violent crime rate of nearly zero.

Clearly, we have work to do because we have any measurable numbers of mass shootings annually, and we cannot deny suicide rates multiply where guns are on hand. But the ownership of firearms is not the problem here. Switzerland would be a war zone if it was and it’s one of the longest-running neutrals in modern history—and, coincidentally, one of the few European nations not to be invaded in centuries… but high gun ownership would have nothing to do with that, I am sure… The culture is what is failing here. Maybe we should address this before prostrating ourselves for the future world order.

Is it lack of a religious core, beyond political posturing as “conservatives?” Is it a poor cohesion of the traditional nuclear family, or some failure to respect life on the whole leading aberrant people to shooting strangers? I don’t pretend to have an answer, if there is a single one, but the guns aren’t the problem. The people are. People we don’t help before they pull the trigger are the ones killing themselves and committing mass murders.

We, the people, have the right to keep and bear firearms. We have the corresponding responsibility to prevent their misuse by regulating our own behavior, morally and socially lest the federal government choose to usurp our authority as its electorate and take all these rights away. Otherwise, we’ll see thousands of firearm-related suicides every year and mass shootings even after the government decides we can’t be trusted with the means to resist martial law when US-NORTHCOM is activated.

Speaking of lone nuts with lack of material motive, like with Lee Harvey Oswald, I wonder something about this Rosenberg shooting. I heard and saw from ABC News and Fox News the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) was present before the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after the shooting. I also heard the sheriff refused to identify the shooter, the same officer opposed to increased gun control, and the hospital’s numbers of casualties conflicts with law enforcement. Something’s odd about this.

Why is the ATF on site before the FBI in a shooting where the local law enforcement officer refuses to identify the killer? Even if it is coincidence of federal posting of its agents and the sheriff office being diligent before releasing information to the public, my conspiracy suspicions are piqued. If the ATF is not closer than FBI agents where the shooter is as-yet unknown, it could easily be a patsy: and the best kind. A dead one, just like Lee Harvey Oswald.

What is the significance, if any, of discrepancies about the fatalities between the FBI and the hospital? Could that be simple confusion of victims, or was the shooter (himself or herself?) one of the people treated? What happened to the body if so, and is there any more chance of the public being given real proof of events than as happened with Sandy Hook?

The whole thing stinks. These kinds of things should not happen, even in low numbers per capita. When they happen with dubious context it makes me that much more upset.

Advertisements
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: