The discussion began here. How dangerous is it, really, if the fedgov pursues its current course of trying to forbid gun ownership to millions of (very arbitrarily defined) “mental defectives”?
Carl-Bear Bussjaeger took his thoughts over to his own site. Among other things, he says:
They came for the convicted felons, but I wasn’t a felon so I said nothing.
They came for the misdemeanor domestic violence offenders, but my wife hadn’t reported me for intimidating her by yelling so I said nothing.
They came for the Section 8 residents, but I wasn’t on Section 8 so I said nothing.
They came for the veterans, but I wasn’t a veteran so I said nothing.
They came for the disability recipients, but I wasn’t on disability so I said nothing.
They came for the mortgage defaulters, but I didn’t default so I said nothing…
Personally, I’m with Carl on this. Banning gun ownership by fiat is only part of what makes this business so dangerous. Arbitrarily declaring millions too “mentally defective” to have self-defense rights is another horror. Arbitrarily declaring millions “mentally defective” for any reason is historically terrifying. As is the very act of governing by fiat (especially when you’ve already tried, and failed, at achieving the same thing by law).
Sure, freedomistas and dedicated gunfolk will defy, evade, resist, scoff, and generally flout yet another bunch of regulations. Some of us may even acquire bargain weapons from Eloi fools or their family members who obey the new diktats. But the issue is waaaaay bigger than that.
Anyhow, discuss away, here or over at Carl’s place. Contra Carl, I’m perfectly happy to have the comment section turn into a shouting match — as long as everybody’s polite while they’re shouting.
I don’t deny for a moment that all these things are true, and that they have significance. I’ve been writing about it for about 50 years. I also can’t do a damned thing about any of them except to avoid it where possible, and fight the “enforcers” if necessary. If anyone has a better idea how to counter these threats, I’d love to hear it. But, for the record, no political process or protest is going to be part of that answer.
The only thing I object to is the idea that nothing can be done, everybody (except maybe a few) are dumbasses and “sheep,” and that these things will continue to overtake us all. Those who accept the “authority” of government – or any bunch of rulers – to do any of that, regardless of the “rules,” will never be able to do much about it either. If we believe THAT, then we are truly doomed.
But history indicates strongly that the sheer weight of tyranny eventually brings it down. Tyrants are their own worst enemy. Sometimes you man the ramparts and pour boiling oil on them. Sometimes you just have to stand back out of the way and let them fall.
And people (many people) will die in the process either way.
They just keep pushing. And it is always made to sound so reasonable. I was one of those “mentally defectives” about 10 years ago.
I had a large, colorless melanoma in a hard-to-get-to-spot. By the time I had it surgically removed, it had grown so large that I was given a less than 25% chance of making it 5 more years. Now, the treatment for melanoma is interferon. Lots of it. For a year. It is so brutal that one of the leading causes of death for folks on interferon is suicide. So, at the advice of my oncologist, I also started taking an anti-depressant. I quit as soon as I finished my therapy, but now I have a history taking a medically prescribed mind altering substance. For the purpose of preventing myself from self-harm. Never mind that I never once considered it.
I could very easily be singled out for the elimination of my second amendment rights.
As to the fix, I think the only one is the one mentioned in the quotation at the end of my comment. You see, about 11 months into my 12 month interferon therapy, with a probable life span of less than 5 years after anyway, I was in the perfect frame of mind to take a few of the bastards home with me…..had they come knocking.
As it is: Cancer free for 10 years!
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
In short, “They came for Thee, but I was Me – so I said nothing.”
This “mentally defective” business has been settling into place since the American Psychiatric Association got into bed with fedgov and brought out its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders http://www.appi.org/products/dsm-manual-of-mental-disorders. “Mental disorders” are as arbitrary as executive orders; anything that can be “interpreted” by those in charge, can be controlled.
It behooves us all to stay healthy, and die in our sleep!
As for guns, I think fedgov got the message when people began resisting and firearms started jumping off store shelves. They’ve realized that banning, while it may not work universally, is still the method of choice by reeling us in piece-meal. And that, they’ve set out to do.
Sheep bunched together in the pen have nowhere to go when attacked. If they can’t protect themselves, it’s time to bring in the guard dog.
On another but related subject, has TZP decided to write/print up some “grampa”-like pamphlets on this subject? And on other subjects: I’m thinking every chapter in The Bad Attitude Guide To Good Citizenship could be condensed and illustrated (and the real-life resources listed), and could be distributed around. Could TZP get permission for this from Paladin Press?
Unfortunately, as one of the perpetrators in this discussion, I have never been able to get Carl’s site to load. Maybe it’s Seamonkey, maybe it’s Lubuntu. Oh, well…
I tried again, and it did load, for the first time. Computer making a liar out of me, sheesh.
I take no issue with the lintany of liberty-destroying measures the ruling class is up to. They are every bit as evil as this demonstrates.
My issue with this is two-fold.
1) There are downsides to doom and gloom. Too much of it, and it tends to paralyze people, make them throw in the towel. I’ve always wondered if that is not the whole aim of the game. It seems unlikely a lot of people are actually going to be disarmed by this measure – but vast numbers might well be made to give up the fight. Is infowars about warning people about problems, or about making them surrender?
It is well known that government CANNOT WORK without self-enforcement. The most important part of the equation is the minds of those being governed. Lassitude and passivity is what they want.
Keep in mind all these measure are essentially irrelevant. When (not if) the economy collapses, gun control laws instantly become irrelevant. Pretty much all laws become irrelevant. We are on our own, and what happens in DC, thousands of miles away, is irrelevant (except for such things as nuclear war, which we have no control over in any case).
2) All such measures require the agreement of the peons to happen. Armed people cannot be disarmed without their agreement. Look at the new gun control laws in New York and the rest of the Bloombergian efforts. Are they being enforced? Mostly not! Why? Because people don’t agree. Because cops who would have to enforce them, don’t want to die.
Boo-hoo. There are new bad laws. Somebody call the waaahmbulance!
Maybe I’m just an optimist. The more bullshit laws they keep cranking out, that nobody will pay any attention to, the more practice people will get in flouting them. Not just anarchists, everybody. It’s really a hoot on this one, particularly. Telling cranky old farts what to do? Good luck with that one, Obama!
When people (“idiots”) ask me: “but you agree we need to keep guns out of the wrong hands, right?” I always say no.
Who is “we”? How do you propose to do that? Whose hands are wrong? Who gets to decide?
I don’t want cops to have guns. I don’t want the military to have guns. Militia, yes- government military, no. I don’t even want cops or militaries to exist, so to me, those would be the wrongest hands of all. But I don’t want “laws” against them having guns (while off-duty, at least) because I know somehow those “laws” would be used against me.
There is no way to keep guns out of the wrong hands that doesn’t also somehow limit guns in the right hands. I would prefer that every “felon”* be armed than for “laws” to be used to disarm them. If they need to be disarmed, they need to be shot. If you can’t be trusted with a gun you can’t be trusted. Period.
Stop trying to impose your anti-gun rules on anyone. It will work itself out just fine in the end.
*I’m very suspicious of the word “felon” anyway. It’s a nonsensical designation. Very arbitrary and calculated to give the State employees more power to hurt you and me- a threat of “it will make you a felon” can alter behavior in harmful ways. You’re a felon? So what? Did you initiate force or violate private property, regardless of whether you’re a felon or not? That’s what matters to me.
“As it is: Cancer free for 10 years!”
DTSwede — Hell of a story. Congratulations on your triumph and thank you for the cautionary tale.
The number of potential gun owners the fedgov can (or already has) banned by fiat for various reasons is astonishing and the reasons so arbitrary! It’s a particular shame that the targets of fiat bans are often people who are seeking or getting help. (Great way to discourage people from taking care of their problems.)
Sure, freedomistas and dedicated gunfolk will defy, evade, resist, scoff, and generally flout yet another bunch of regulations.
Looking at all the crazy news, I really thinking it’s spreading beyond that.
1. Trump is in first place, ahead of fifteen Republican politicians, because he isn’t one.
2. Massive disobedience in Northeastern states.
3. Lots of women learning to shoot. Lots of female new gun owners.
4. As you blogged, six governors arming their NGs.
5. 12,000,000 CHLs nationwide.
6. The recruiting station no-guns-sign-with-bullet-holes graphic is all over the place.
The times they are a’changin. But it might be messy. The Donald thinks he would look good up on a white horse.
“The Bad Attitude Guide To Good Citizenship”. A 5-year-old book of Claire’s that I haven’t read? How can that be? Fixed. Kindle version on my iPhone. Bought through Claire’s Amazon entry link: http://www.amazon.com/?tag=livifree07-20
We should all have or acquire weapons that are ‘off the radar’. And bury them on public lands, in secret. Keep only a few in the house that are known to fedgov. Make sure some trusted friends or family know where your stashed guns are – but not all in one place and not all known to one person (some folks will crack easily even if you do trust them).
Sadly, the confiscation work will likely be pushed down to the local LEOs. But if they take that duty they are traitors too. Too bad for them as some citizens are certain to resist.
Bill — 🙂 Thank you. That book is mostly just a collection of past articles so hope you won’t be disappointed. It does have a few originals in it & I expect some of the oldies will be worth the revisit.
There’s another twist to the “mentally defective” thing: A lot of antidepressants and other psychotherapy drugs are often prescribed for non-psychological conditions. Chronic pain is one example. The alterations to brain chemistry that make antidepressants work can sometimes change the way the mind perceives pain, so if regular painkillers don’t help the doctor might try antidepressants. Whether they work with your case or not, you are now on record for having taken it.
Absolutely, Ellendra. And this is one reason I don’t think it’s wise to give a drug designed for one purpose to a person with another problem. I think doctors are irresponsible to “treat” this way. People react differently to different drugs and to the same drugs, yet the medical community expects every patient to react the same, depending on what the drug is *supposed* to do (which in turn is determined by what the drug company has said it will do). This attitude messes up the expectation, and assumes the patient is at fault or “mentally defective” when their response to the drug is off-kilter.
[The number of potential gun owners the fedgov can (or already has) banned by fiat for various reasons is astonishing and the reasons so arbitrary!]
I think it would be more accurate to say that the fedgov has *attempted* to ban. Are you so sure these people are paying any attention to the bans? Would you? One does not have to be an anarchist to ignore stupid and immoral laws.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian