2nd Amendment Protest

I read the story about the 16 year old thug that was wounded by the guy he was trying to rob. Did you know that he will be called a child injured by gun violence.

 

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoidic outlook were everything and everyone is seen a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality is dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone that does has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

**

 

As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

**

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole carrying of a concealed weapon movement is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.
(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy. These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)

**

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest lever of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

**

So again who is this intimidation been directed at?

 

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.

**

I have tried to point out that this doesn’t seem to fit with US history, and have given some examples but here I would like to go into a little more detail and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

And to show that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.

**

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**


What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

**

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?
As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.


This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

(And with every threat or policy the villains change, Columbian drug dealers to accompany the ‘war on drugs’ and Arab terrorists to accompany a pro-Israeli foreign policy).
The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

The thing is are they still?


If they are I think the establishment will continue to stand by them.

But if they stop being seen as allies or the establishment believes it has other means of control they will turn on the gun owners. I think many pro-gunners realize this and feel the threat.

Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.
Because once the government - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure. Look at what happened to the anti-government citizen militias after the Oklahoma bombing opened up an opportunity to move against them (and how they briefly became the villains in a number of films).


The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.

 

Bottom line. People will want to arm (with guns, clubs, words, things, etc.)themselves when they feel threatened or pushed on in some way. The government AND others can feel quite threatening. Surely you are not trying to say that nobody should ever feel threatened? Your post answers the why of things. History also points out that unarmed people can be killed or harmed easily. When those in leadership positions find violence to be acceptable, then it becomes acceptable. Unfortunately, over time and history, more and more completely insane people are in power. They prop each other up and like attracts like. That is why it keeps getting worse. I don't see this ending soon. It scares people. And when people are scared they do stupid or at least defensive things. But, IT IS HUMAN NATURE, and even ANIMAL nature to try to protect themselves from perceived fearsome things. So all the "ifs" in the world will not change things one bit. Face it, you are living in a screwed up world. And it does not matter how many pages of anti this or that you can write, because it's still a screwed up world.

 

Firearms are all but banned in Kenya. Yet, that place is a fucking hotbed of tribal tensions...there is a sense of mistrust and fear going back generations. Not to mention the fact that the criminals have *never* had any trouble obtaining firearms.


I'm sure you know about the killings that are going on there right now. HUNDREDS of innocent people (women and children included) have been pulled from their homes and hacked to pieces by machetes.

Would you like to take a guess as to how many dead bodies were found holding a loaded gun in their hands?

 

Gun Control In Kenya
​

The dangers of a disarmed society
​

by Jon E. Dougherty, staff writer for WorldNetDaily
​

(This article is an excerpt from the October 25, 1999 edition of WorldNetDaily.© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com )
​

I don't often write about the same subject twice in a week, but I received a pro-gun/pro-safety response from an interesting fellow last Thursday after I wrote a column about the absurdity of disarming all Americans. I thought readers would find it useful in making their case that the gun issue really does revolve around safety, not just rights. This is his message:

"Just read your article on Maryland's attorney general wanting to ban handguns for most. Your conclusions are correct. "We have lived for a number of years in Kenya. There ALL guns are banned, including toy guns that look like guns. The only exception is for small bore shotguns for bird hunting, which are owned by a select few. These guns must be stored in the local police station armory. They can be checked out only during hunting season. It takes an act of parliament to get shells.

"Yet in Kenya any criminal that wants one can get a gun.

"My wife and a friend were robbed at gunpoint near Mombassa. Their vehicle was taken also and they were left standing on the side of the road. As they were walking along they heard shots. The same crooks who had just robbed them, robbed and killed a tourist down the road. And this is in a nation where the police go around with automatic weapons.

"They (the police), by the way, shoot to kill all the time. I worked as a pilot and the airport had armed police everywhere and lots of 'security.' One day, in front of our hangar, a Kenyan made the mistake of touching the policeman's rifle. He died for that mistake, right there in the parking lot. One night in Nairobi, next to my house, a person was lurking in a nearby empty lot. The police came and blew him away with automatic rifle fire. Shoot first and no questions, now or later.

"Make no mistake, when only the police have guns, no one is safe. But even wanton killing by police does not deter crime. The only safety is when you're at home and behind locked bars. Bars everywhere, doors, windows, gates, everywhere. We had to have a security guard, armed with a machete, and a locked gate and wall around our house. Day and night. Terrible way to live.

"And there is still no safety. There are home invasions there too, where 20 or 30 thugs come with wrecking bars and break into houses. Happens all the time. The police for the most part had no cars for transportation. Call 999 (911) and if the phone happened to be working, the response would be on foot or by public bus.

"Another friend was robbed once, during the day. The police came and when they were standing in line for the bus to go back to the stationhouse they noticed someone standing there in line also, with the loot they recognized from the same robbery they came to investigate. The person started to run, so they blew him away too. Our friend felt real bad someone had to die over mere 'stuff.'

"I am a gun owner and don't like the NRA, but when they say, 'when guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns,' they are correct. Then, no one is safe."


----------------------



Doesn't that sound like a completely nightmarish place/way to live? How horrible!

God Bless America.

 

Michael

This is the difficulty in talking to some pro-gunners they repeat stuff that’s been addressed a number of times, sure repeat it, but you then need to reply to what’s been said in relation to it, otherwise all you are doing is stalling a debate, not moving it on.

The problem for me is that many pro-gunners seem to see guns as a way of dealing with social issues rather than trying to understand why there are social problems and then trying to deal with them.

This piece is from 8-9 years old and if anything the situation has got worse, do you have any ideas why, do you know much about Kenya’s political, social and economic history?

This is the thing; this ‘terrible way to live’ is being put forward to promote gun ownership (and the lunacy of gun regulation) without ever explaining or putting into context why there has been this terrible situation in Kenya for some years now.

It’s the difference between those that wish to find understanding and build a better world and those that just want to win there argument come whatever and don’t care to understand (often because they think they already do).

It’s the difference between a pragmatic and reasoned approach and that of an ideologue.


**

 

OK Balbus, why don't you go ahead and explain to me why the ancient Sumerians, ancient Romans, the Mongols, the Turks, the Portugese and the Vikings, the Chinese and the Japanese, the Russians and the Africans, the Native Americans and the American colonists, the English, The French, The Romanians, the Lithuanians, the North/South Koreas, the Aztecs/Mayas/Spanish Conquistadors, the Poles, the Serbs, the Germans, and the Neolithic Cavemen

ALL

had this very obviously solvable problem of rampant violence within their cultures...going back as far as human history itself?


You go ahead and start trying to solve the problem.

Me? I'll buy a Glock to make sure my family has at least SOME kind of security while we sleep.

 

Violence to one's fellow human beings has been a problem since the beginning of recorded history yes. But.... there have also been many records of societies living in relative peace and properity for countless generations. The easiest way to solve violence in the world would be to kill everyone who doesn't agree with your ideas. But then what kind of peace would that bring?? When violence is gone what does humanity have to replace it? The end of violence through violence would almost certainly lead to.... something far worse. The end of violence through peace would almost certainly lead to....... something far better! Something humanity as a whole has never even shed light on before. Either way we go something never before done will happen. But what happens is entirely upto us.

Hitler wasn't insane, he simply was misdirected
Saddam wasn't evil, his idealologies simply didn't coincide well with the overall theory of what a good idealology should be.
Bush wasn't wrong in going to war...... at least not in his own eyes.

 

p.s. when we all sit down an' think about violence what comes to our minds as good solutions for it??

 

Michael, thank you.

You don’t seem to care about your society you have your glock and that’s enough

I argued over a year ago that it seems to me that guns were seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

Thank you for backing me up

**

 

"When in Rome"....

 

Balbus I hear you. thats definitely some food for thought

 

Balbus...what would you say if I told you I was actively involved in community outreach programs, and devoted a good part of my life to the betterment of society

BUT

kept a gun at home for protection, just in case?

Wouldn't that pretty much trash your argument that we see guns as "the only solution to society's problems", and that we are "ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society."?

 

well that would be a good question! lets see if there will be a real answer? i am curiose or how ever you spell that!! lol!

 

Michael

Halleluiah

This is great, brilliant, that’s what I’ve been waiting for someone that is pro-gun but also willing to discuss what they think are the social, economic, cultural and political problems and their ideas for dealing with them outside of the framework of the threat, intimidation attitude.

Thanks again Michael, please go ahead tell me your ideas.

**

 

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like Michael's changing his tune, for the better I might add. I just hope he gets a chance to pop off a few rounds with that glock of his in a safe environment. It's a fine form of recreation, and it's important to be proficient, because with power comes responsibility.

Owning guns is not about aggression, threat, or intimidation, though I can see where one would get that impression, given that our culture in the US seems to be based on fear these days. And anyone who thinks they can use guns as a means of affecting cultural or political change is delusional, and destined to end up in a body bag.

 

I'm not changing my tune...in fact, I'm clinging to my original points like never before, and that point is that guns are useful and even NECESSARY tools that save lives every day. The fact that certain criminal elements would misuse these tools shouldn't strip the vast majority of their rights to defend themselves and their families by the most effective means possible. I wasn't trying to shift the conversation away from the importance of guns, I was just addressing your primary argument against them. You were implying that most pro-gunners see guns as a primary solution to society's problems. I was showing you that's not the case. Guns won't fix society's problems, but they WILL provide you with a means to defend yourself should you ever find yourself in a life or death situation. And this does happen dozens, or perhaps hundreds of times EVERY DAY in the U.S. Just consult that self-defense blog: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Here's just one that happened today:

From NBC5 of January 10, 2008

911 Tape Captures Horror Before Fatal Shooting

Police in Northwest Indiana have released the audio tape of an emergency call for help.

A woman was reportedly watching TV when she heard a window breaking in her home and called 911.

She then hid in a closet, armed with a gun.

The tape captures the woman struggling with a man, repeatedly saying, "Stop it. Stop it."

The woman eventually shot and killed the intruder. Police said she will not face charges, because she acted in self defense.​

Click here to listen to all of the chilling 911 call


Please listen to that call, and tell me how you feel. Tell me that the cops will come to your rescue.

What do you suppose would have happened to her had she not kept a gun in her home? And you would dare try to deny her that right?!? It makes me sick...



Until you can guarantee that the need to defend my family will NEVER arise, you must allow me the means to defend them if it does.

Why don't you understand that???



You're making a very unfair generalization in saying that those who own guns as a means of self-defense don't care to see society improve. That's kinda like saying those who buy cars loaded with airbags don't care to drive safely!

 

Right on, I couldn't have said it better myself, thank you.

...still awaiting Balbus' response...