Newly-elected
New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was correct when she
said during her campaign that the
N.R.A. (National Rifle Association) represents gun companies, not gun
owners. Like her, I, too, feel that the N.R.A. does not do enough to
represent gun owners. But that is because the N.R.A. actually lobbies
against personal
ownership of powerful weapons (albeit while supporting ownership of
less
powerful weapons like rifles and handguns).
Recent
federal court rulings concerning the legality of 3-D-printed plastic
weapons, is just another example of what I've been saying: letting
technology and automation run their courses will lead to cheap
alternatives which subvert authorities (authorities which, I will
remind you, are Republican, do not give a shit about you or me, and
will most likely be in and out of power for the rest of our
lifetimes, unless significant change occurs). If allowed to flourish,
this technology will not only help protect us against the government,
it will also allow private citizens to compete with the big gun
manufacturers. But of course, the success of that competition is only
realistic when big gun manufacturers are insulated from legal
accountability and financial risk through L.L.C. incorporation, and
given additional privileges, protections, and favors.
Conservatives
and libertarians tend to criticize Leftists for wanting gun control
“like they had in socialist countries, like Soviet Russia, or
Venezuela, or Cuba, or China, etc....
I would recommend that
any Leftist who supports gun control and hears this critique, simply
explain that: 1) not all Leftists, communists, and gun control
proponents are Stalinists or Maoists, 2) they don't all want to kill
millions of people, 3) “I want common-sense gun legislation because
I don't want anyone to
get shot”, and 4) the C.I.A. and Yale helped Mao get into power in
the first place.
I
think the only way to avoid claims that socialism will lead to mass
murder, is to support the use of guns to defend workers against
tyranny. Many conservatives are perfectly willing to admit that
bosses take the product of the worker's labor every bit as much as
politicians and bureaucrats do. Try telling a conservative that
“profit is theft”, watch him struggle to understand, then ask him
how he would feel if he found out that he had been the victim of wage
theft, and then explain that profit is theft because profits are
stolen wages. But back to the topic at hand: guns.
Gun
control supporters might argue that guns support white privilege and
police brutality, or that gun rights supported the rights of slave
patrols to kill black people. I won't deny that they have a
point. But those people – black people, the sons of former slaves,
and victims of police brutality – do still have the right to
arm themselves with weapons too. They retain the right to keep and
bear arms, to keep themselves safe from racist and homophobic
attacks, sexual assault, and if need be, unlawful arrests wherein
police officers use deadly force without cause.
But
Karl Marx, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King Jr. all supported gun
rights. King applied for a gun carrying permit before his death, but
was denied one by his racist state government, which for all we know,
probably collaborated with the FBI to murder King. Malcolm X and Karl
Marx, and the people of the Paris Commune of 1871, believed that
armed workers are safe from both exploitative bosses and tyrants
alike. Marx said that any attempt to disarm the workers must be
frustrated with the use of arms if necessary.
About
200 million people were murdered in the 20th
century by their own governments, very many of them murdered with
guns. Sure, many died unintentionally, because of economic
mismanagement that led to droughts and starvation). But 55 million of
them died in countries which had legally disarmed their citizenries
first. The Nazis' 1930s gun restrictions limited Jews' rights to own
guns (while expanding Germans' rights to do the same), which led to 1) the creation of an unarmed Jewish police force
in the ghettos (Jewish Ghetto Police), 2) the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
of 1943, in which Jews, lacking guns, brandished Molotov cocktails
and hand grenades against the Nazis, 3) pogroms of Jews at gunpoint,
and 4) the adoption of Nazi-inspired gun control legislation in
America, with efforts spearheaded by Senator Christopher Dodd, Sr..
There
are plenty of libertarians who side with the Black Panthers against
Ronald Reagan's gun control measures which limited their right to
open-carry. To those of my readers who are leftists: if a libertarian
challenges you on gun rights, then ask them whether they support
Reagan or the Black Panthers on this matter. If they say Reagan, tell
them they support the gun rights of career politicians over the gun
rights of working people; people who have families that they can't
get the taxpayers to protect for them.
Not
only must the workers be armed, the populace must be armed in order
to guard against the draft, against forcible, conscripted service in
the U.S. military. Even allowing “support roles” reduces the
value of the citizen's labor to zero, because it is forced.
Furthermore, it reduces the conscientiously objecting citizen to the
status of an accomplice to mass murder. Read the 2nd
Amendment six months before it was formally adopted, before it was
chopped in half. It used to protect conscientious objection; it used
to protect our right to shoot at the government, to shoot at armies –
British, American, Chinese, I.S.I.S., al-Qaeda, any army
– whomever is trying to steal our children and turn them into child
soldiers and murder us for our land.
That's
what the 2nd
Amendment was originally trying to protect; the right to
conscientiously object to being forced to render military service in
person, and forced to defend oneself with a gun and as part of a
regulated unit. The formal legal definition of “unorganized
militia” in the U.S. Code, and a close analysis of the text of the
Second Amendment written six months before its adoption (with close
attention to the meaning of punctuation marks therein), will confirm
this. Founder George Mason was correct when he said that “the whole
of the people” is the militia.
I
know that supporting gun rights is a tough sell to leftists, but we
must not repeat the genocides and democides of the 20th
century. We must stop American governments from enforcing all sorts
of liability regulations and gun control measures that interfere with
people's rights to defend themselves and innocent people who are
unable to defend themselves.
I,
by the way, am a private security guard who works in a gun-free zone.
I think this fact is utterly absurd, and the ridiculousness needs to
end. The only kind of common-sense gun control regulation I support
is “controlling your gun” by aiming straight, and shooting
tyrants and terrorists who want to draft and enslave you.
That's
why, I beg your pardon, weapons of war do
belong on the streets of America. And if they don't, then maybe a
better place to start would be getting tanks and drones out of the
hands of local police departments (a consequence of a Clinton-era
law), like we saw in Ferguson, Missouri. Maybe; that
is, only if and when
the people trust the federal and state governments more than they
trust the local police.
However,
if there is any truth to the idea of “common sense gun control”,
then certainly, criminally insane people who have committed acts of
violence, should not be able to access guns. But that does not mean
that we ought to take Senator Dianne Feinstein's lead, and carelessly
cast American veterans as insane from P.T.S.D., and thus incapable of
owning a firearm. These people served this country for years after
learning how to use firearms in highly disciplined fashions, which is
an insult.
To
take away someone's right to purchase, own, or practice using a
firearm, or to hunt, without reasonable suspicion that they are
actively planning to use it to harm someone, is an affront to not
just the 2nd, 5th, and 7th
Amendments, but also to the very notion that people ought to be
presumed innocent until they are proven guilty.
The
“red flag” bills being signed into law in Democratic states
(including Illinois and New York), allow judges to issue orders to
confiscate weapons of people deemed to be immediate and present
threats, by their families who seek orders of protection. While it is
more just for a legal order to be issued by a court than by a
legislative body, some people could potentially become targets of
wrongful disarmament due to fraudulent grounds for orders of
protection.
I
am not worried about veterans going crazy and killing a bunch of
people. What worries me is that we don't have any mental illness
background checks on the psychopathic, sociopathic, and Machiavellian
politicians who are crazy enough to think that they're better than
everyone else, and so, can order us around. They get away with paying
poor people's children to protect their property and die in wars,
while they themselves shout “get rid of guns”, surrounded by
armed security guards who protect them with guns.
People
like that should not be governing us, and if anyone should be
screened for potentially posing a threat with weapons, it should be
the biggest arms dealers on planet Earth, the members of the U.S.
Congress (located in the District of Columbia, whose chief export is
weapons and armaments).
Written
on July 4th, 20th, 26th, and 27th, and August 1st
through 4th, and 6th, 2018
Edited
on November 16th,
2018
Originally
Published on November 16th,
2018
