An explanation from James Wesley, Rawles' website survivalblog.com why neo-coms fear guns and gun owners:
A recurring theme in western journalism, academia, and
collectivist politics is the quaint notion that firearms are
intrinsically evil. That is, that they have
a will of their own,
that somehow inspires their owners to murder and mayhem. I liken this
nonsensical belief to voodoo.
The
"guns
are evil" viewpoint was encapsulated by
social
psychologist Leonard Berkowitz when he wrote: “Guns not only
permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the
trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.” I am
astounded that something like that can be earnestly said or written
in modern times, and not immediately get shouted down. This statement
betrays an outlook that is not much different than that of a
practitioner of Voodoo. And to see this espoused by some with a nomen
appendage like "Ph.D." makes it even more absurd. (Leonard
Berkowitz was awarded a Ph.D. in social psychology from the
University of Michigan in 1951. But apparently U. of M.'s doctoral
program did not include courses in logic. And
his
study of what he called "the weapons effect" was
conducted quite unscientifically.) Just imagine if he or one of his
academic cohort were to proclaim: "Typewriters not only permit
libel, they can stimulate it as well. The fingers tap the keys, but
the keys may also be pulling the finger toward the keyboard by an
unseen force, stimulating libel.” Any psychologist who trots out
such nonsense needs to consult a psychiatrist.
I have a few questions for Dr. Berkowitz and his peers:
1.) What is the mechanical difference between a "target
pistol" and a "murder weapon"?
2.) What is a "Nazi Luger"? Can a Luger pistol join the
National Socialist party, and share their hatred of perceived
Untermenschen and wish to exterminate them? By the same
token, what is a "Communist AK-47"?
3.) How many people have been killed by guns
without
someone physically pulling the trigger? And in any very rare
exception to the norm, was it a mechanical defect or negligent
handling at fault, or did the gun really
wish to do harm and
"go off by itself."?
4.) Why have gun makers been sued for wrongful death because of
murders committed with their products? (If a gun does indeed
consistently fire a bullet at high velocity when the safety mechanism
is disengaged and the trigger is pulled, then isn't that device
working
just as designed?)
5.) What, pray tell, is the distinguishing characteristics of an
"assault" rifle, and what differentiates it from a
"hunting" rifle? Does the attachment of a black plastic
buttstock make a gun in any way more wicked, murderous, or bent on
assault than attaching a pretty wooden stock?
6.) Is a magazine capacity of 16 rounds inherently more evil,
criminal or sinister than a capacity of 15 rounds? (This was
threshold that the geniuses in the Colorado legislature recently
declared, complete with jail term penalties. OBTW, Canada set the
threshold of evil at a mere
five rounds, for semiautomatic
long guns.)
Let step back and look at these tools logically and
dispassionately: A firearm cartridge can be thought of as a simple
single-use internal combustion engine, with a piston that does not
reciprocate. Instead, it takes a one-way flight. The engine housing
is a brass cartridge case, and the "vehicle" is the entire
gun. The pistons as are called bullets. The fuel for these engines
(gunpowder) creates the expanding gasses that drive the pistons.
Cartridge firearms are compact vehicles for change that have shaped
modern history. The righteousness of their use is entirely up to
their users, since like any other tool they can be used both for good
or for ill.
A firearm is just a tool with no volition.
A rifle is no different than a claw hammer. To wit: A hammer
can be used to build a house, or it can be used to bash in someone’s
skull—the choice of uses is entirely up to the owner. A
bulldozer can used to build roads, or
to destroy houses. A rifle can be used to drill holes in paper
targets, or to dispatch a marauding bear, or to murder your fellow
man. Again, the choice of uses is
entirely up to the user.
But, alas, even though it is the 21st Century, we are still dealing
with voodoo-like superstition. If you get angry or drunk and you then
use your Chrysler car to run over a neighbor's child, should your
neighbor then launch an organization called "
The
Coalition to Ban Chryslers," to punish all Chrysler owners?
I am also opposed to all so-called “gun control” laws because
they are a form of
prior
restraint. The gun grabbers presuppose ill-intent on the part of
law-abiding citizens and even the guns themselves. I find these laws
akin to the concept of “pre-crime”—a term coined by science
fiction novelist Phillip K. Dick, in his novel
Minority Report.
(It was later turned into a movie, starring Tom Cruise.)
If a firearm is used by a criminal or psychopath with evil
intentions, then it is a tool for evil. But if it is used for good
(to
defend life and property), then it is a tool for good. A
firearm
by itself has no sentience, no volition, no moral
force, and no politics. The proper term for this is an
adiaphorous
object--something that is neither good nor evil. A firearm is
simply a cleverly-designed construction of metal, wood, and plastic
in the form of
a precision tool. Granted, a firearms
magnifies the
reach of a man's volition. But so does a long
bow, and so does a telephone and the Internet. But to deride
the
tool itself instead of someone who abuses it is profoundly
illogical and superstitious.
So why do they disparage the tool and not the one who wrongly
wields it? Why isn't
gasoline seen as evil, since Julio
Gonzalez used it to kill 87 people at the
Happy
Land Club in his murderous arson, in 1990? And why aren't there
calls to ban
nitrogen fertilizer, since Timothy McVeigh used
it to kill 168 people in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995? And shouldn't
Boeing
brand jet aircraft be banned, since they were used to take
nearly 3,000 innocent lives on September 11, 2001? And aren't
pressure cookers now
the weapon of choice of
Islamic terrorists?
Ever since the invention accurate rifled firearms, the course of
human history has been set by the men who wield them. For someone to
exclude themselves or seek to disenfranchise others from owning or
carrying them is the most absurdly illogical and downright suicidal
attitude imaginable. It is obvious that so-called "Gun Control"
laws have nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns, since
criminals ignore
all laws, by definition. Only honest,
law-abiding citizens obey these laws. Rather, these laws are just
about
control--namely
people control.
Dictators cannot dictate unless they have unarmed subjects.
Here it is, in quintessence: You are either a man with a gun, or
you are mere human cattle for the slaughter. The choice is yours. I
prefer to be armed and vigilant rather than being at the mercy of
some would-be slave master. There is no notch in my ear.
Because they are such useful tools, our founding fathers
recognized the great importance of safeguarding our ownership, carry,
and free use of arms. Like the printing press, they were specifically
protected by the Bill of Rights. These enumerated rights should be
taken at face value and not misconstrued. The Second Amendment is
about protecting your right to go deer hunting the same way that the
First Amendment is about protecting your right to publish poetry.
ConclusionPlease speak up when you see
someone preaching voodoo gun hatred.
Violence
involving firearms is actually down 39% in the U.S. since 1993.
But anti-gun rhetoric has recently been
increasing. All of
the "evil gun" talk is nothing more than an unfounded
irrational fear and loathing that has no place in a modern society
that recognizes facts and logic. Anyone who engages in this rhetoric
should be immediately suspect. Odds are that they are
halophantae
with a hidden agenda. While they rail against an inanimate tool, I
suspect that they are actually plotting against the liberty of a
group of people with whom they disagree. They want to disarm
you,
so that
they (or their hired armed thugs) will have
a monopoly on force. And if the history of the 20th century
taught us anything, it is that a monopoly on force inevitably leads
to genocide. - James Wesley, Rawles
Understand yet? The neo-coms want you to become their slaves.
Come and Take It!
