Time is short for producers, and I only recommend reading, listening and viewing pieces that I find to be worthy of a busy person’s time. This YouTube suggestion is for over 5 hours of video, and was suggested to me by a voluntaryist pal in Scottsdale, AZ, thanks Tom!
I suggest that as you watch it, you don’t make judgement about what you agree or disagree about, just listen and contemplate. Then, a week, month or year later, watch it again, this time carefully thinking. I am in my second watching, and am finding that 80% of the content is great!
Skip the first 16 minutes of video 1, it is of the “interviewer” advertising the project. I will summarize for you, “If you like the video, please make a donation and check out their webpage for lots of other info.”
This post offers memes related to civilian disarmament for thinking people to contemplate…
Because those with IQ’s over 93 understand that “Gun Violence” is a term made up by propagandists that are counting on you being stupid.
It would be intellectually honest, even if debatable, to argue for ending “Violence in which a gun was used” but for dishonest folks, that just isn’t good enough. The term ” #endgunviolence ” is a smart/evil way to attach an action to an item.
That is a sobering thought, isn’t it? Totalitarians seeking greater power always mock resisters, labeling them as paranoid or as insurgents.
Arguments made by people that support the governments using their force to take property (firearms) away from people are not typically logical. Some arguments are good from a pragmatic perspective, but ignore basic human rights. For example, one might argue that a man that wants to have sexual intercourse and feel powerful ought to rape a woman. That argument is pragmatically acceptable, but is not morally acceptable.
It could be absolutely true that if useful innocents help the government take away independent individualist’s guns, there could be fewer guns in circulation, and there might be fewer carjackers that get shot. It could be absolutely true that a man that rapes a woman pragmatically achieves his goal. I think he is a horrible man, perhaps as bad as another person that removes effective protective tools from human beings, rendering them less able to protect themselves. Both are bad actions!
“Gun Violence” statistics are very skewed! In fact, not ALL violence is bad, right? For example, if a man initiates violence against a women by attempting to rape her, and she violently shoves him away, should she be hated for employing “hand violence?” That would be ridiculous!
Sometimes ya gotta do the right thing. Having casually learned a bit about “history” including the circumstances of Jews in Germany in the 30’s, stories from the Martyrs Mirror, the Japanese internment camps in Wyoming, the “ethnic cleansing” around the world as well as other genocides & other examples, and, having an IQ over 84, I am very concerned about the mob mentality I see in our great land today. There are many religions that sound pretty ridiculous to me, and I often have good fun chatting about them with friends, with each of us learning about the other while playfully mocking each other. I look at many parts of their religions as being silly, but I obviously don’t mind that they believe whatever they want to believe.
My heart goes out to good Islamic folks in December 2015 in the US government’s jurisdiction. These folks, like most folks in most religions, simply “fell into” the religion of their parents and grandparents. Yes, I know it is argued that Muslims and Christians “thoughtfully considered a dozen religions with an open mind, and it is pure coincidence that they returned to the one of their parents and grandparents.” lol
There are bad people out there that wish innocent people harm. Those people suck, and regardless of color, religion or national or county or other political area, I hope to have an opportunity to persuade them to be peaceful folks. Chances are, I will not have that opportunity. If I ever see someone initiating violence, really trying to physically harm someone else, I will likely take action. I will shoot them if I must. It is right that good humans take action to protect themselves and their neighbors.
Having said this, many people in the US have been radicalized to hate and be terrified of Muslims. As a result, it must really suck to be a Muslim in the US right now. I can hardly imagine if the powers that be had selected folks with black blood, a family history including the Mormon religion or those with Jewish blood. I fall into these categories. It must feel as though there is not a safe place for persecuted theists. It would be horrible to be on facebook and see all the hate and violent intent aimed at me and mine. The “night of broken glass” sucked for the Jews. The thousands of non-violent political prisoners behind bars in N. Korea, the US and other places is sad and scary. Sometimes humanity disappoints me.
The reason for this post though, is to publicly proclaim that I choose to be a moral human. To me, this includes not frightening my neighbors that live within 13,000 miles of the BBQ on my back porch, based on religion, race, sexual orientation, disability or any of that kinda stuff.
This includes not buying into propaganda. If you live in Jackson, and the mob gets all hyped up after watching Fox News over a few beers and attending church, grab their torches, stakes, gas cans and come for you some night, please come on over to my house. We will likely lose the physical fight, but we will die on our feet rather than living on our knees. I refuse to be another “silent neighbor” that watches Jews being hauled off in cattle cars or black slaves sold at auction, even if “my political leaders warn of their grave danger.” I would have trouble sleeping if I did nothing.
My Christian friends point out that Muslims are really bad at their core because they choose to stay in a violent religion that advocates killing those of different religions. They point out that the Bible is in fact peaceful and good, whereas Muslim scriptures are violent and actually say that non-believers should be killed! This verse from the Koran IS scary, I don’t argue that! “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods… Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor harken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him. But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die: because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the God.” -Koran Section 7, verses 3-6
Obviously this verse comes from a violent religion, I get that. I have friends that also ingest violent encouragements through grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty and other sources. I don’t like violent media, whether in video game format or religious book format. This does NOT however make me want to be violent against those folks. If the Muslims DO take over the US, and they come for Conservative Christians with their torches, stakes, gas cans some night, please come on over to my house. We will likely lose the physical fight, but we will die on our feet rather than living on our knees. I refuse to be another “silent neighbor.” I would have trouble sleeping if I did nothing.
A woman is walking down an alley at night and two men jump out of the shadows and tell her they are going to rape her. The woman, who is a middle aged physician recovering from depression and has never acquired a concealed carry permit, draws her concealed gun from her purse. The rapists hesitate…
Suddenly, a person we will name Pat walks by and grabs the woman’s gun and runs away with it. The men are then able to proceed with their deed.
I am of course upset with the rapists, and I very much consider them morally wrong.
Almost as guilty is Pat. I consider Pat morally wrong as well.
Whether Pat grabbed the victim’s gun a second or a year sooner than my above story, Pat remains a bad person. Pat can say that we can “agree to disagree” however as long as the rape victim’s sobbing echoes through my mind, it is to me much more than a political difference.
Pat prevented gun violence. End Gun Violence #endgunviolence ?#stopgunviolence ?
Not all “gun violence” is bad.
End Gun Violence #endgunviolence by arming yourself so that you can defeat an armed attacker!
Jackson Hole Candlelight Vigil to Promote Gun Control Legislation
Gun Control Advocacy Program of the Newtown Action Alliance and affiliated churches and organizations
On December 10th 2015, the Newtown Action Alliance (NAA) (a section 501(c)4 issue advocacy organization) put on a “National Vigil to End Gun Violence.” An Episcopal church in the Jackson Hole community partnered with NAA and promoted & organized the local “candlelight vigil.”
This “vigil” was part of a national anti-gun political campaign to promote gun control legislation. This strategy is FAR better contemplated and is more strategically sound than many political campaign with which we are all familiar. In this article, I wish to illuminate the playing field and expose the techniques used by the “Reasonable gun control” movement. It is good that we have opinions and share them with others, however I do not like political trickery. As you know, this is not a “2nd Amendment” issue for me, rather it is a property rights and human rights issue.
This Anti-Gun political campaign wisely uses advanced propaganda and psychological operations techniques including getting government officials to appear to be on their side. These officials must appear to be in agreement with their audience, so they will not “out” fake events like this one as being political, even if they recognize it as such.
The Playing Field, Opponents & Goals
For thousands of years, humans have observed the world around them and come up with ways to protect themselves from perceived threats. From a man in his cave sharpening a stick into a spear to a contemporary lady purchasing and training with a a modern sporting rifle, humans yearn for safety and for the ability to protect themselves.
Governments typically and rightfully feel threatened by a well armed citizenry, and typically take steps to disarm them. This is sometimes done by physical force through legislation or otherwise and sometimes through psychological operations to bring about a cultural change. Those that control governments of all sizes necessarily participate in this disarmament of their citizens because in order to have control, one must have the power.
The highest level of “government” in the world is the United Nations, and their website is worth visiting to learn more about their efforts to disarm subjects of their small arms worldwide. They use examples (that we all share sadness over) to describe why governments should have guns, but that mere individual subjects can not be trusted with them. They do not mention the above violence perpetrated by governments.
Useful idiots the world over, also seeking power and influence voluntarily jump in to help governments with this and other agendas. I suspect that Soros & Bloomberg are among these useful idiots. Unlike the typical useful idiot, they might even be aware of the ultimate purpose and goal, but that is not relevant. The US government as well as all other members of the UN “must” follow its dictates. Regarding this topic, the entities and people mentioned above and their agents are the “Anti-Gun” players.
On the opposing team are individuals and special interest groups. I am writing from this side of the field. Many on this side of the field point to various government documents and politicians letters to one another from hundreds of years ago. This part of the team puts their confidence in the US Constitution and cares less about the philosophical and human rights angles that I am more interested in contemplating.
It is my belief that humans ought to have only a few basic rights, and none of these rights should require positive action on the part of other humans. In other words, I can not have a right to my neighbor’s money, time or other property. I do have a right for him not to punch me or prohibit me from pursuing my happiness so long as it does not include initiating force/violence or fraud against him or his property. This belief does not rely upon government documents, because if I am correct and it is a good principle, it does not rest on things written by other people. We will call the Second Amendment folks and my corner the “Gun Rights” players.
How #endgunviolence works -techniques
The NAA does what control seekers have done for many years and looks for organizations that have many leaders of small groups. Churches have historically been used as a favorite group by political powers, and with a few nods, winks and tax exemptions, a wonderful marriage is created. In this way, the ears and hearts of the organizations followers can be reached by a trusted voice – their clergymen! The clergymen can then incite fear and provide THE “solution.”
The anti-gun movement has secured the allegiance of various large religious sects, including the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians. It is then an “easy sell” for groups like NAA and many others to work within those organizations to put on political events that further their goal of disarming individuals.
The political event that spurred me to look beneath the surface and report my findings in this article was the “Nationwide Candlelight Vigil.” Origins? In 2012 a violent man killed children in Newtown Ct. As with the other 55 million people that die each year, this was a very sad incident. While the death toll was less than the number of people that die each year in the Philippines from jellyfish or that die from falling out of bed each year in the UK, THIS event was widely reported.
Politicians and special interest groups on all sides of the issue stumbled over themselves in excitement to use this tragedy for their political gain. The incident was personalized, frozen and polarized. The narrative was that, “multitudes of children are being killed by assault rifles each day, and good people must give up their freedoms to save the children’s lives.”
The anti-gun team also uses politicians as pawns. A local politician is, like a clergyman, a great mouthpiece and showpiece that is trusted in the local area. Even if the politician does not speak and simply attends an anti-gun event, they are given carrots of praise, promotion and branding when the organizers tell the public, “Thanks to Binkham Doodly for coming out to show their support this evening, I think we can all agree that sunrises can be beautiful.” in truth, most of the public naively thinks, “My late dad always liked Binkham Doodly and he clearly supports strict gun control and after all, many sunrises ARE beautiful.”
Propaganda Words & Phrases
Though billions of people the world over ‘care” about gun issues, fewer than 10 will likely ever read this entire article or a similar article written by the other team. The “public” is unfortunately not generally comprised of contemplative, philosophic truth seekers. For either “side” of any issue to get “the public” on their side, logic, reason, facts and similar are not of much use. Instead, Edward Bernays, Saul Alinsky and others have improved methods by which the masses can be communicated to in the most effective manner. This is called propaganda.
Word selection is very important in propaganda. As an example, let’s pick on the human rights side of this issue and a word we use. Consider the term, “anti-gun.” In truth, hardly anyone is truly “anti-gun. Few people have a problem with wealthy white men using their $200k matched Purdeys to shoot pheasants in Ireland. Most subjects agree that their governments should have guns, not only the military but also the police, inspectors and compliance officers. Few people want to stop farmers from rodent control with a 22 rifle. Hardly anyone is actually against guns. What governments, their agents and useful idiots ARE against is private ownership of guns by their subjects. If their stance was described in as many words, even the dim public might not like it.
Why are words powerful tools? Consider the phrase “Jewish Problem.” If a person accepts this phrase, they are legitimizing that a Jewish problem exists and are helping promote that concept. Even if I say, “I don’t believe there is a Jewish problem” I have legitimized the existence of a “Jewish problem.” The same holds true with terms like, “religious radical” and “gun violence.” All intelligent sides of an issue use propaganda, and 99.9% of us don’t even notice it. Those that DO see it, find that they see life through a different lens. We have, in effect, taken the red pill.
Those that are not aware of propaganda hear the term “gun violence” and display the conditioned response.
“…This is the construct of the term “gun violence”. When you lump all violence in which a gun is used into one category and define reducing that number as a positive good, in and of itself, you necessarily discard or negate anything positive that results from “gun violence”, and ignore violence that results from the substitution of other methods. That is the semantic trick that is being employed in this instance.” -Dean Weingarten (Read more.)
The reason that term is used is because it freezes an issue, stirs up emotion and polarizes. It is part of Saul Alinsky’s rule #13. When terms are examined with a cool head, rational & open mind with a dedication to intellectual honesty and the morality of living by the means rather than the ends, one can see life with clarity.
Consensus & compromise. This term is often used by a person or group attempting to change the current state of things. For example, consider a man that says to his neighbors, “I intend to steal $100 from each of you each week.” The neighbors would object, saying that taking their property away by force or fraud is immoral. Our protagonist might then compromise and gain consensus that he should only take $30 each week from each neighbor. Consensus and compromise are not always good or always bad, however these words are used by “anti-gun” enthusiasts with the implication that they are necessary, reasonable and good.
This term was coined by politicians to describe semi-auto rifles, most common among them is the AR15. While the thinking person knows that the term “assault rifle” is pejorative and that most shots fired through an AR15 are not done as part of an “assault” it is easier to simply “let it slide.” Why argue over a word? Even though hundreds of millions of shots are fired at steel & paper targets for fun and as self defense practice each year, and only a tiny fraction are used in “assaults” dishonest propagandists will use the absurd term. Because of John Bobbitt’s incident, is it not fair to call all knives, “Penis Amputation Daggers?” Words, like physical objects, can be used as weapons. Accepting disingenuous phrases and using them helps the team that developed them defeat YOUR team. This is why the anti-gun crowd does not use the term “anti-gun” but our team does.
“90,000 people have been killed by gun violence since the Newtown CT school incident.” This sentence is well thought out political propaganda, and is designed to shock the reader and have this thought imprinted in their memory. Later rational discussion based on evidence will not erase that mental image, or more importantly the emotion the reader feels when they first see it.
Consider a school teacher falsely accused of child molestation, he will always carry that label. The side of an issue that makes a “shock statement” does not even care to argue about it later. They will probably concede sarcastically that the numbers are not exact, and likely won’t spend much time on the 20%er-challenger that is not to be easily convinced. Their mission has already been accomplished, most in their audience have connected violence with guns and they then connect guns with huge numbers of dead bodies. Nothing said was baseless, many people DO die from gunshot wounds, the statistics show this clearly. Well played.
Consider words used, their dictionary meaning, common usage meaning and emotional connections. Examine the word “violence.” Check numerous mainstream dictionary’s definitions, read Gandhi, the Koran, the Bible, Black’s Law Dictionary and the writings of voluntaryist writers, as well as other “peace movement” writings. Compare your new understanding of violence, and see how “wide” and “general” you believe it is able to be used with intellectual honesty. Some examples:
If a woman is being attacked by a rapist with a knife and she shoots him, were her actions “violent?” Yes. Should she be counted statistically as a perpetrator of “gun violence?” No.
If a 94 year old man with sever heart disease and cancer decides to enjoy a final cup of coffee by the creek on his farm, then chooses to end his life with a bullet to his head, was his action “violent?” Had he instead hung himself, should he be a “rope violence” statistic?
If a 9 year old child find his parents unsecured car keys and plays with their car, in the process driving off a cliff and being killed, is that “violence?” If he had instead played with an unsecured gun, tractor or fallen into the swimming pool, should any of those be labeled as “violence?”
Incrementalism. This campaign as well as other totalitarian and Marxist campaigns have an acceptance of patience. The Fabian Society’s logo is of a turtle. By demanding much and accepting little repeatedly, a position can cover much ground. The US government has been involved in a campaign to disarm individuals for many years, and even has strong ties with the alleged “opposite side.” It is brilliant to “own the opposition” in regards to the NRA.
Who would disagree that violent felons should not have their firearms taken away by force? Who would disagree that men who became felons by denying the First Night to their king or committed other tax crimes should not have their firearms taken away by force? Who would disagree that men who physically or mentally abuse their significant others should not have their firearms taken away by force? Who would disagree that those suffering from mental illnesses like depression, drapetomania or other diseases should not have their firearms taken away by force?
Please understand that the participating priest or rabbi at your local level is certainly a gun control advocate and is actively taking action that will prevent women from effective means of protecting themselves from rapists, robbers and their governments. Why would a religious leader not protect her flock and instead be an Uncle Tom for her parent organization? Why wouldn’t s/he speak out against his sect’s national level anti-gun proclamations of support?
S/he is weak and/or gullible. Ministers in established sects make some serious bank, and to denounce the parent church’s general assembly could mean losing their job. They then likely rationalize, “Gun control is going to happen anyway, and after all, I don’t like the multitudes of children that are “slaughtered” in “gun violence” “massacres” each day due to “gun violence.” They can then take the next step of agreeing to spread fear and misinformation with the disgusting “strategy” of promoting a Newtown Action Alliance political campaign under the guise of a “candlelight vigil.”
Why does it matter that NAA’s Nationwide Vigil and similar political events are labeled an “Anti-Gun Demonstration” versus a “Candlelight Vigil?” I believe this matters very much because 99% to 100% of the people attending these political events do not realized that it is a political event. They will even argue when they are told about the gun violence propaganda they are being fooled by, and are incredulous that their kind and slick-tongued minister would manipulate them, even if for the good. They will attack the whistle-blower and defend their church’s corporate status quo position.
They, like you and I, dislike the initiation of violence. All good humans are saddened when they hear of innocent people being harmed. They do not attack truth-tellers because they are bad at heart, their world view is just shallow, naive and simple and the possibility that their perceptions are upside down are too much to handle. They remain at heart, good hearted people.
I am very concerned about the initiation of violence, regardless of the tool used. I am also saddened by the deaths of people from auto collisions, poisoning, cancer and many other causes of death. I attended the anti-gun demonstration, not to agitate or preach, but to share concern with my neighbors about the effects of violence.
The BIG DIFFERENCE is in good people’s conclusions and concepts of making the world a better place. The anti-gun team’s propaganda is trying to establish a societal knee-jerk reaction of calling for guns to change from civilian hands to government hands anytime a bad thing involving a gun occurs. If one was not concerned with human rights, this could be a “solution” worth investigating.
Another possible “solution” is to increase the number of guns in individual’s control. This is my position. I hope that all my neighbors will investigate buying guns, training with them and carrying them to protect themselves and those they love against initiated violence. I hope they will store them in a safe manner.
Further understanding the propaganda of #endgunviolence
“Propaganda is an interesting topic, and even an elementary understanding of propaganda provides the thinking person with a lens through which the world’s communications are clearly visible. To a person without this “lens” the world looks very different. I urge all thinking persons to think rationally and learn about logic and propaganda. You will be mocked by those without this lens or “red pill,” and you will have less bliss, and it is worth it.” -Shepard Humphries
Of 100 people in your community, 80 don’t have an incredibly strong opinion about anything. The remaining 20% of folks passionately believe one way or the other to varying degrees. Political campaigns are NOT designed for those 20%. A Wyoming Gun Owners organization is not trying to convince NAA gun control campaign volunteers through rational discussion to change their view on private gun ownership.
Those that oppose human rights of choice by advocating for greater government control of private firearms are not trying to convince a gun store owner or conservative rancher that guns are bad. Both sides have as their target-market the 80% of people in the “middle.”
Unfortunately, those 80% are not the “thinkers” in society that read and contemplate scholarly articles and diverse proposed responses. They are the people that watch “news” and believe what they are told. If you are reading this article, you are NOT one of the 80%-ers. 🙂 They are playing video games, cross country skiing, relaxing at a bar or volunteering at a local dog pound. They are NOT reading articles with greater than 75 words, evaluating them critically, investigating all sides and developing a stance.
This is why long articles like this one or preaching vehemently about gun violence propaganda is almost always a waste of time and makes the “human rights radical” look crazy. This article is only appealing to the .05% that already strongly agree with human rights of self defense. If logic was taught to children, television was a 1-hour per week activity and Donald trump convinced Bill Gates to shut the Internet thing down, and if many other changes to society occurred, the common person would perhaps be a great thinker, but the effective activist knows that small shiny objects are much more fascinating and appealing, thus bikini models sell cigarettes, politicians kiss babies and religious leaders sell folks on giving up their defensive tools.
The United Nations is supported, promoted and given legitimacy through private organizations like the Rotary Club & churches and public organizations like school districts. The 80%-ers naively think that the United Nations exists to efficiently feed little children and bring peace to the world. I know that to the informed philosopher or social scientist this appears to be a moronic view, but the UN’s propaganda is very good and most people are indifferent or think favorably of the them! Those that doubt it are immediately labeled “wackos.” Well played.
Like a rapist comforting his victim during his horrible act, the UN and those acting as part of their programe of gun disarmament by putting on anti-gun events will in effect say, “Relax, this isn’t that bad, it is actually good in the long run, play along and you won’t be harmed.” Is it disgusting & inflammatory to compare a devastating one hour traumatic victimization of one person to a lifetime victimization of millions by using force to take away their most effective means of defense? I don’t think so.
If you care about the “gun” and “violence” issues …
Examine CDC data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm The serious investigator must look deeply into each statistic and recognize that the numbers come from an organization that openly supports gun control legislation. It should be trusted about as much as NRA statistics.
Consider what the issue REALLY is. Can you as an individual, or can the government tell individuals what to do based on statistical likelihood of bad things happening? For example, if more women that are wearing clothing that shows cleavage are raped than those that are wearing Mennonite style dresses, should women then be forced to wear long modest dresses? If having a gun in one’s home results in a greater probability of harm than not having one, should people be forced to get rid of their guns? Of course not. The basic human right of choice is ultimately important.
Since 911, our government has repeatedly worked to instill a culture in Americans of “see something, say something.” At airports, we are told to report suspicious behavior to the authorities. If we see a crime, we’re told to call 911.
There are two big problems with this approach.
First off, if you see a crime in progress, by the time that you call 911 and they arrive, the crime will already be over. The Bureau of Justice notes that in the case of violent crime, if 100 people call 911, one third of those will be waiting from 10 minutes to an hour for police to arrive. This is a problem, since the average interaction between a criminal and a victim is over in 90 seconds.
Once the police arrive, they may be able to interview witnesses, collect evidence, and find the criminal. But that’s cold comfort to the victim. If a girl is raped by a hooded man in an alley, she will live with that trauma for her entire life. That’s true whether or not the police track her assailant down and put him behind bars.
The same is true of any crime. If a violent criminal pulls a gun, robs a man, and then shoots him after the robbery, calling 911 will not bring him back to life. Police may track down the murderer, but seeing him in prison will not heal the massive hole left in the lives of the man’s friends and family.
“If you see something, say something” is not a slogan calculated to actually prevent crimes.
The second problem with this approach is that it encourages a culture of enfeeblement. We are told to hide behind our government protectors, simply relying on them to guard us from evil. If we see a crime happening, we are told not to intervene but merely to alert the proper authorities. They will be the ones who actually help others. All you have to do is sit tight and wait for them.
This is the wrong attitude. We need to stand up for ourselves, protect our loved ones and our communities; not just hope the government will take care of our safety. “If you see something, say something” fosters a nation of people content to wait for someone else to do something.
At Peacekeeper, we prefer, “If you see something, do something.”
If you see a girl about to be raped, and you have the combat expertise and the training to save her, you should do so. You should step up to save her life.
This isn’t about vigilantism, which is hunting down criminals after the fact. Street justice doesn’t end well.
Instead, it’s about becoming a force for good so that you can prevent crimes as they’re happening.
Crime prevention is the key. If you can stop the crime before that gun is fired, before that woman’s life is destroyed, that makes the world a better place.
Peacekeeper is a set of tools to help you do this. It’s a decentralized network of ordinary people who want to protect those around them. It’s a system that alerts you to crimes happening in real time so you can step up and save a life.
And what if you don’t have the expertise to intervene in a crime? What if the criminal is a muscle-bound thug with a gun, and you have no combat experience? Peacekeeper 2.0 lets you send out an alert to people who are nearby, willing to help, and who do have that expertise. If you can personally stop a crime, great. Even if you can’t, you can still be a force for good.
A principle is a foundational rule from which one makes future decisions. Principles must be consistent and may not be dependent upon exterior factors. If exterior factors can change a principle; it isn’t a principle, but rather a general preference with wiggle room. Dianne Feinstein and the NRA Agree in Principle on Gun Control
One may change a principle if they examine it and find that it is not good, and when they do so, they must let go of the old principle and may only claim the new one. Let’s examine two principles relating to wife-beating to illustrate the nature of conflicting principles -v- preferences.
A husband should only physically discipline his wife when absolutely necessary, and when necessary, the discipline should not be excessively cruel or unreasonable.
On the opposite side of the spectrum is the following principle:
No person should initiate violence against other people, including a spouse.”
The first principle is held by most of the 7 billion people in the world. Some of the world’s most powerful religions accept and teach it while other cultures frown upon it much the same as they frown upon farting in public. There are of course many different specifics regarding the initiation of violent physical actions, ranging from shaking an uncooperative wife by her arms to get her attention, to the extreme of beatings to death as punishment for cheating. These are matters of preference and of degree.
The second principal is held by only a minority of the world’s population. We are a stubborn lot that always have an excuse for why disobedient wives should not be disciplined. This group holds to their principle, even when faced with scenarios like, “If you don’t make sure she knows who is boss, how will you know that you and your kids will have a meal ready at night?” We that hold to the second principal retort that we “do not know how everything would work, but we know that it is wrong to initiate violence.” We are labeled as being dogmatic idealists that refuse to use the sense that is commonly held and fail to understand the problems that would occur in today’s world if women are not forcibly controlled.
With this example under our belts, let’s look at another example, the agreement in principle of the NRA and gun control advocates. Let’s again look at two principles.
The right of people to keep and bear arms is not absolute, and governments should infringe upon those rights by controlling who owns guns and the types of guns that may be privately held.
On the opposite side of the spectrum is the following principle.
The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first principal is the one held by the NRA, all national governments, the UN and Dianne Feinstein. There are billions of people that hold this principle, and within all of those minds there are many differing specific preferences. Some might think a rifle magazine for private use should only hold 30 rounds, while others think 29 or 28 or 10 or 3 would be a better number for round capacity. Some think that .30 caliber is as big as a bore as should be allowed for individuals to have, and others think the cap should be .50 caliber or 20 mm.
Some think that those that have demonstrated opposition to government’s preferences and as a result are labeled “felons” should be excluded from being allowed firearms ownership, along with black people, wife-discipliners, gays, atheists and Muslims. These are matters of preference and of degree. All the people with this principle agree that it is necessary and good for governments to control firearms ownership of their subjects. Principles -v- Preferences.
The second principal is held by only a minority of the world’s population, primarily philosophers and those in the peace and freedom movements. These people argue that guns are like books, sticks and other things compiled of atoms. They argue that all humans should be free to own and use whatever atom-compilations they personally choose, and that the risk of people using books, guns or other things in a bad way does not give others the right to preemptively deny the person the right to have that item.
They are labeled as being dogmatic idealists and refuse to use the sense that is commonly held and to understand the problems that would occur in today’s world if individuals were allowed by their governments to have any book, gun or pencil they choose to have.
My point in this article is that the NRA holds the same principles as the anti-gun crowd. They only differ in preference and degree. I happen to be on the side of the second groups in both of the above examples. You may of course choose which side you agree with, but to be intellectually honest and consistent, one must accept the good and the bad of following their principles.
If you believe that a savage repeat-offender black atheist felon that is released from prison should not have the right to keep and bear certain arms, you might be wise and your preference might save someone’s life, however, you must admit that you do NOT believe in the principle that the right of people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon. The NRA and Mrs. Feinstein have strong preferences, many that they disagree with each other about, and some that they disagree. In principle however, they agree that the right of people to keep and bear arms should be infringed upon by the government. Neither speak out about a danger of a government being better armed than the subjects it controls. What about the GOA and the JPFO, what is their principle?
So, speaking of intellectual honesty, should I, and people that share my belief in the principle that people’s right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon hate the NRA and Mrs. Feinstein? Both the NRA and Dianne, as well as those that fund and otherwise control them are “just people.” Like me, they are wrong about some stuff and right about some stuff. They are “just people” like me, and I will happily be friends with them.
The NRA has an excellent Training Division that is not associated with their government ILA division, and they have another division called the NRA Foundation, that while corrupt and at times tolerant of employee incompetence, is not at all associated with their government division. I am a big supporter of two of the divisions, and while I cannot support the government wing that fights for a principle that is contrary to the one I hold, I would happily stand alongside Dianne and an NRA ILA attorney and volunteer at a disaster relief soup kitchen, or go out and have a blast shooting clays with them!
Dianne Feinstein and the NRA Agree in Principle on Gun Control
In this article, I will assume we agree on a premise with which I strongly disagree. I make this assumption because I intend to argue that beyond preferences for what is “best” the practical issues of gun control would be impossible.
Premise: Guns cause many deaths in the US each year, and should not be in civilian hands, but rather only in the government’s hands due to governments’ awesome track record of not killing people. We need legislation to accomplish this. We understand that some people enjoy firearms and they may store and use them at approved shooting range facilities, but they may not be taken off premises. This fact is recognized by 99% of voters and all agree that it is time for a War On Guns.
Ok, let’s imagine that yesterday that legislation passed. It was in the news, and Federal government agencies have begun collecting and destroying firearms.
The first wave of action is for the feds to offer a “buyback” program similar to Australia in which 20% more than market price is given in exchange for firearms. Let’s call this program the Freedom & Safety Program (FSP). Millions of law-abiders take advantage of this offer and 60% of gun owners turn in their guns, leaving only 108 million firearms in civilian hands. Citizens that have not been convicted of felonies, misdemeanors or infractions, and compete in registered firearms competitions at least monthly as well as hunters that prove they have safe storage are allowed to keep their guns so long as they are registered. Failure to turn in a gun to the FSP or register is a misdemeanor.
Meanwhile, local law enforcement is reporting and collecting for the feds any firearms they discover, including the 8 guns owned by a victim that had his 9th gun stolen by a criminal. He called the local cops to take a burglary report. Unfortunately, since he had not turned his guns in during the FSP, he was not compensated for the 8 guns that were confiscated. This type of seizure would likely remove at least 100,000 guns from the street each year.
A new law passes that requires all Federal Firearm Licensed dealers and gunsmith to make two photocopies of all the 4473 forms they have. One copy is given to state local law enforcement, who is given a mandate and the funding to ensure that all listed guns be confiscated and that surprise searches be done of the homes and businesses of the transferees listed. An additional 40 million guns are seized, leaving only 57,900,000 in private hands.
A new law is introduced that makes possession of non-registered firearms a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine for each firearm. The legislation includes a 20% annual tax increase on all people listed by the IRS as members of the felons households. This law is called the Constitutional Liberty & Safety Act (CLSA). A 90-day window is given in which these undiscovered felons may turn in their firearms without penalty, but also without compensation. It is made very clear that after the 90 days expire, there will be no more excuses and people will be jailed. This is enough to compel many more gun owners to turn in their guns. Now, in July of 2020 only 27,000,000 firearms remain in private hands.
Why do I say 27 million? 27 million is 10% of the original 270 million estimated firearms. I examine the success that governments have had with other Wars on Stuff. These include wars on poverty, terror, drugs, illiteracy etc. Meth is a good example. Like a firearm, it can be made in a garage with the right tools and supplies, none of which are specific to making that thing, and therefor impossible to control 100%.
With the strong focus on meth eradication, how are things going? How much success have we had. Is the 90% success rate at controlling gun possession reasonable? In truth, the success rate would probably be even lower, but I am willing to be generous. As a matter of fact, how about I round down by 63% just in case technology developed through private sources as well as Bush’s Patriot Act have far more success.
These 10 million firearms are in the hands of people who are NOT willing to follow the law. Perhaps 50% of them are “bad guys” that would be willing to rob, burglarize, murder and threaten. The other half are comprised of stubborn libertarian-types we refer to as “Dangerous Illegal Mentally Ill Terrorist Insurgents.” (DIMITI)