“When government takes away it’s citizens right to bear arms it becomes the citizens duty to take away the government's right to govern." -Accredited to President George Washington
It is interesting how this is playing out in front of the people in this country when it comes to more illegal encroachments or infringements on law-abiding gun owners. Remember, they accuse the law-abiders of the crimes of the law-breakers (1 John 3:12).
Here is how it is played out: On one side of the divide and conquer aisle (Mark 3:25) we have Donald Trump, sold to you as the Republican, who calls for illegal “red flag laws,” which are not law. In the end, they will be aimed at their political opposition.
On the other hand, we have those who are sold to you as the Democrats, who are calling for the removal of AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons.
Which do you prefer? Do you prefer small infringements through Donald Trump, or complete disarmament by Democrats? Either way, you are being disarmed and tyranny wins out.
I would advise everyone to take heed to President George Washington, who is responsible for arming the citizenry that we are to “guard ourselves against the impostures of pretended patriotism” (Matthew 24:5-8; 2 Corinthians 11:14).
If you are paying attention, this is not only leading through “created” opposition, but it's also happening through what is called the Hegelian dialectic (John 8:44).
The Hegelian dialectic is defined as "a framework for guiding thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead to synthetic solutions (of a proposition- having truth or falsity determinable by recourse to experience) which can only be introduced once those being manipulated take a side that will produce the predetermined agenda (Outcome)."
Recently, the mainstream media’s push of un-constitutional debates and their Communist candidates included Beto O’Rourke and his gun confiscation plan.
'No, it’s not voluntary 'It is mandatory,'" O'Rourke said of his proposal. "It will be the law. You will be required to comply with the law." He then went on to say:
"We expect people to comply with the law."
The problem that Mr. O’Rourke is having here is that it is not law nor will it ever be law regardless of what he or any other Communist candidate wants you to believe.
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Americans, where have these anti-gunners received delegated authority to advance their agenda? They did not receive it from “We the People.”
Have Americans really become this dumbed down as to believe that representatives change laws that counter our rights? Our rights didn’t come from the state's generosity. They came from the hand of God, period!
“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” -President John F. Kennedy
Representatives of government in this country have, in fact, sworn to uphold the laws found in the US Constitution, not to tear it down and recreate it into the ungodly image of the United Nations.
Friends, look to history. George Mason warned us that those who mean to disarm, mean to enslave. They mean to be your masters while you become their slaves, and the best way to enslave people is to disarm them (Hosea 4:6).
Look to the example, which our forefathers exhibited not just in writing, mind you, but also in action. Our forefathers armed the people for the very purpose of what is happening in America today.
Americans must come to terms that corrupt politicians are not the type that you can help or rehabilitate. They are the type that you must lawfully remove, or you will lose your God-given right! (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution)
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – President Thomas Jefferson
You must fight for your God-given rights! (Deuteronomy 1:8; James 2:14-26)
It is the difference between a free people and an enslaved people. There is no in-between (Luke 11:2).
Firearms are second to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty’s teeth.
Therefore, Americans, it is time to grin (Romans 12:21) in the face of tyranny.
The gospel according to Robert Francis O’Rourke:
“Hell yes. We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against fellow Americans anymore.”
What a schmuck. In fairness to our favorite fake Mexican, however, at least he’s honest about it. Slicker politicos would never admit it.
They would not admit it because my neighbors and I would turn our AR-15s on them. That’s why the Second Amendment to the Constitution exists in the first place—so an oppressive government cannot ruin our country.
The left HATES guns. It has a firm belief that anybody who owns a gun must be a terrorist. Or the police. Or their private security guards.
They think that guns kill people. Cars, Ryder trucks, diesel fuel, fertilizer? Not so much.
Back when Chuck Schumer was just a Congressman (and the space between he and a TV camera was STILL the most dangerous place to be in Washington) he made a critical mistake with a witness in a hearing on gun control. Suzanna Hupp was testifying because she was with her parents at the Killeen, Texas, Lubys’ Cafeteria in 1991, when a shooter killed both of her parents. She had consciously left her weapon in her car.
When she testified in front of Chuckie’s committee, she was asked what sporting purpose a particular weapon had. Her answer:
“I know I’m not making myself popular here. But the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. It’s about our right—all of our rights—to protect ourselves from all of you sitting up there.”
Twenty-Eight years after the shooting, her popularity should be at an all time high—at least among sane people.
The simple fact is that no law, no rule, no regulation passed by some overstuffed, egotistic politician masquerading as a Congressman or a Senator—or worse, some nameless, faceless bureaucrat—will stop some nutcase from waking up one morning, taking anything which can be used as a weapon and using it to kill people.
No background check will save a life.
No weapon ban will stop a shooting.
No confiscation will stop the use of anything to kill someone.
We probably could work around the edges, but the left has some shibboleths which prevent anything like that from happening.
One of those shibboleths is that guns kill people. It was never true and will never be true.
If you put a gun in plain sight and surround it with people, it simply will never stand up by itself and kill someone. That takes a person who, for whatever the reason, picks the gun up, aims it and bulls the trigger.
But the left wants to blame a marvel of engineering as opposed to the moron who picks the gun up and kills someone.
Another shibboleth of the left is that law abiding people cannot be trusted to possess guns. That somehow, owning a gun will turn a perfectly normal person into a bloodthirsty criminal.
Do they have empirical evidence?
In fact, most evidence points the other way. Whatever else you can say about criminals and even crazy people, they tend not to shoot up places where they might get shot first.
How many mass shootings (as the left is wont to call them) happen in cop bars, as an example?
Now, we’re never going to convince most of the lefty nutcases with words. Which is why James Madison made sure we have the law on our side. And now we have a Supreme Court which has said that gun ownership as a matter of self-defense is a right granted by God and not government.
The crazier the left gets, the more it plays into our hands.
You want to confiscate guns from law abiding people? Come and take them. Speaking for little guys everywhere, see what happens.
Another white supremacist right-wing terrorist commits mass murder. I’m sure you’ve heard all about it. I’m not going to talk much about gun control because you already know where you stand on that issue. I’m not going to even talk about the actual massacre because you’ve probably heard all about it and, honestly, I doubt I have anything new to say. I do want to talk about the fact that I wish I was more shocked. I mean, do you actually remember a time when it would be shocking to hear about any kind of massacre? I certainly do, and I honestly feel like it was decades ago. Now, I just wait for it to happen, knowing it will.
Remember back in 2011 when a white supremacist right-wing terrorist massacred 79 people in Norway? I hope you do, because I actually forgot all about it. I seriously did. This morning I read Huffpost’s really excellent: Mass Shooters Have Exploited the Internet For Years. New Zealand Took It To A New Level. (No, seriously, it’s great, you should take a few minutes to read it because they accurately point out some of the social problems that lead to mass shootings). Somewhere within the Huffpost story, the writers mention the 2011 attack in Norway that killed seven nine people, and I immediately thought, “Attack on Norway? Jesus, I don’t even remember that one.” I had to look it up. It took me a few moments of reading to recall the details. And then I thought, “Oh, I think there's a Netflix movie about it that just came out a few months ago - maybe I should watch it.” Sadly, my thoughts were not “What a horrible, f**king thing to have happened!” Nope. My thoughts were, “Don’t remember it. Oh, right, now I remember it. I should watch the movie.” =(
I mean, there are plenty of mass shootings I do remember. Without looking anything up: Vegas. The Ariana Grande concert in the UK (I think this was a bomb and not a shooting, or maybe it was both, or maybe I’m mixing up concert attacks). The FL nightclub massacre. Columbine. Virginia Tech. Sandy Hook. The Synagogue attack in … um, I can’t recall which city (and I even wrote about that attack). The attack on the movie theater where viewers were watching Batman, but I don’t remember the name of the theater chain or the city it happened. Multiple attacks on black folks while they’re in church. Multiple attacks in Paris within the last five years. The Kenya school attack. The Australian massacre in Port Arthur and I only remember this one because of the Jim Jefferies stand up routine about the attack and his views on gun control (which, is a pretty good routine). The Amish school shooting in … actually, I don’t remember where. Those are the ones I remember off the top of my head and there are clearly important details that I just can't recall - like the horrible massacre in Norway where 79 people died! Five years from now, after another couple dozen mass shootings have occurred, I wonder which of the above I will have forgotten?
Obviously the point being that mass shootings happen often enough that I no longer even remember some of them. I don’t claim to have a solution; however, I do see a few things in common with modern day massacres.
And there we have our game of Clue: The modern day massacre edition! Pick a mass shooting and ask - who did it? Oh, I know! I know! Is it ”the crippling insecure white male right-wing extremist, in the city, with a semi-automatic weapon?” (Well, not 100% of the time but, close enough).
Hey, how about this for a new law - men are banned from owning and operating guns! No, that's illegal. Let's remember the Second Amendment here so, oh, I know! Men can own, like, a flintlock rifle or a blunderbuss, or something as equally inefficient in the modern world - but women are allowed to own Uzi's and 9mm semi-automatic pistols! That would probably cut down on mass shootings. =)
Anyway. We all know mass shootings are not going away. Maybe the next time a cripplingly insecure man decides to shoot up a movie theater - I’ll be there and get killed. Or maybe the next time a cripplingly insecure man decides to “ignite a race war” by walking into a church filled with black folks and gunning them down - you’ll be there and get killed. Or maybe the next time a cripplingly insecure man decides to walk into a nightclub and gun down dancers - your kid will be there and get killed.
But I hope not. I hope someone, somewhere has a solution. And I hope it comes sooner, rather than later. Until then, I will cynically just wait for the next mass shooting to happen. I’ll probably post a bitter story about that one too - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
While the government is busy attempting to disarm the Americans that they work for through their continuous propaganda efforts, they are on the back end in covertly expanding their agencies' arsenals. This should come as no surprise. These types of actions have been leveled against the American people since September 11, 2001, in which many agencies were created that were sold to the American people as precautionary and security measures, only to find that 18 years later that these same agencies have been found warring and stripping away the rights of Americans that government is to secure (Deuteronomy 29:63).
If this is not a cause of alarm to the American people, then what is?
Mint Press News' Whitney Webb reported in an article titled, “Non-Military Federal Agencies Under Trump Expand Already Enormous Arsenals”:
The massive purchases of ammo and weapons by non-military federal agencies, like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Social Security Administration (SSA), that first began under the Obama administration has continued unabated under the Trump administration, while receiving less media coverage.
According to a report released last December by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and recently highlighted by Forbes, the mass purchase of ammunition, weapons and other military-grade items by ostensibly civilian government agencies has continued up through Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, the latest year for which data is available. The report also found that many agencies had misreported the amount and size of their ammo and weapons purchases to the GAO by a significant degree. In one case, the GAO found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had actually spent eight times more on weapons and ammo than it had disclosed to their office.
The budgets that had been proposed for FY 2017 — which ended on September 30, 2017 — had originally been drafted under the Obama administration but were amended by the Trump administration and the then-Republican-led Congress beginning in late January 2017 following President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The Trump administration chose to leave the massive purchases of ammo and weapons by non-military agencies as they were, despite the controversy they had caused among many Trump supporters and other groups when such purchases were made under the Obama administration.
Among the agencies that acquired ammunition, weapons and related equipment in FY 2017 were:
These purchases in the past have been the subject of some controversy, such as the mass purchases of hollow-point rounds by government agencies including the Forest Service, National Park Service, Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Fiscal Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Hollow-point bullets are illegal under the Geneva Convention but government agencies spent at least $426,268 in just two years (FY 2015 and FY 2016) to acquire them.
Ammunition purchases by the Department of Homeland Security in 2013 were also controversial and were subsequently investigated by the GAO. DHS had claimed that is was buying over a billion rounds of ammunition, including hollow-point rounds, in order to “save money.” However, this has long been in doubt, given that hollow-point rounds are significantly more expensive than other rounds that do not expand upon impact.
At the time, Forbes noted that the massive ammo purchases by DHS could be used to sustain a “hot war” for more than twenty years, given that during the height of the Iraq War the Army used around 6 million rounds per month. With its planned purchase of 1.6 billion rounds, DHS would have ammo left over after matching the Army’s peak daily outpouring of hot lead for two solid decades.
Though the initial mass purchases of ammo and weapons by U.S. federal agencies received considerable media attention and provided fodder for numerous conspiracy theories, the fact that those purchases have continued under Trump has received surprisingly less attention. This may be because past concerns over such purchases during the Obama era were often raised along partisan lines, with conservatives being the most vocal critics. This may seem odd given the gun control stances of Obama and his supporters. Many of those who had criticized the Obama administration for these shocking purchases, a large number of whom are now Trump supporters, may perhaps be uninclined to levy similar criticism against a president they now support.
In addition, it is not surprising that the Trump administration would allow these purchases to continue given that such purchases greatly benefit American arms manufacturers, with whom the president has cultivated a close relationship while making arms sales to allies the cornerstone of his foreign policy. Thus, it would make sense that Trump would be willing to support U.S. government purchases of those same arms, by both the military — as evidenced by the Pentagon’s still-ballooning budget — and non-military agencies.
There is no denying that these purchases represent a significant amount of government waste. More importantly, these purchases reveal the gradual yet continual effort to militarize federal agencies that have historically been administrative, a trend that should concern all Americans.
While the militarization of domestic police forces has attracted attention, it is equally important to ask why regulatory agencies are now so heavily armed, considering that virtually all of those pursued by these regulatory agencies are American citizens who are wanted for minor infractions or non-violent crimes.
One might ask themselves, what has been the history of the state when it comes to this sort of activity? Consider that it is this government, outside of their delegated authority, that just passed a bill calling for the murder of the innocent up to birth (Proverbs 6:17).
Yet, there are still many Americans that stand back and play the fool to their own demise as to what this is all really about.
Do you remember in elementary school or in high school when there were mean and unruly kids who were constantly bullying students into submission because they did not go along with them and their rebellious ways? Everyone knew that these bullies were wrong, and yet, within themselves, they were always anticipating when that bully was going to get his (Psalm 94:16). Of course, for some reason or another, that bully getting his was not going to be from their hands.
We see these same bullies in government and media today.
I have a question for you, where did Diane Feinstein and friends in government who are now quietly introducing a major gun bill derive their delegated authorities? We know it is not coming from the American people that they are to receive their delegations (1 Kings 13:33)?
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” -Declaration of Independence
Her co-conspirator in subversive and lawless activity, Nancy Pelosi, also said recently that they “will act boldly and decisively” on guns. I ask, where did she derive delegated authority from “We the people” to enact that which is unlawful? She didn’t! And neither did Diane Feinstein or any other anti-gunner. Then to whom are they working for?
Today, the American people are being terrorized and are clearly being assailed by a power that is foreign to America and the US Constitution through feigned representation and feigned policy disguised as law.
Attack after attack, coming from those who are there to “ensure your God-given rights.”
In countering these criminals, let’s go to the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights where it states:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Our forefathers made clear the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment and the militia.
“Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. … [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – TencheCoxe, Delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…
“The people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well Regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State. …”
He goes on,
“I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people. …”
Friends, our forefathers did not arm the American people for the purpose of hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting: namely in their time, the tyrant King George.
Look to the present and how these outlaws are attacking your God-given rights to bear arms through their purposed, misconstrued misinterpretations and policies.
They are attempting to strip away your ability to protect you and your family from people such as themselves (Luke 11:21), and if you dare refuse to submit to their tyrannical ways, they then label you as an enemy of the state, when in fact, they are the ones guilty of transgressing constitutional law (1 Kings 18:18).
When pursuing the Declaration of Independence this last week, I recollected that it was our forefathers who were throwing off tyrants that would not be ruled by God. As a matter of fact, three-fourths of that documentation is our forefathers highlighting the usurpations and injuries committed against them by one that was attempting to further enslave them.
"To disarm the people...was the best & most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights
Look at some of the sentences found in our Declaration:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
How foreign this is to the average American today, which of course, helps explain why Americans tolerate tyrants in government capacity in all forms (John 8:44).
Doing that which is right and lawful when it comes to today’s politicians is as foreign to them as it was the tyrant King George and his subordinates (Psalm 94:20, Romans 12:21). As a matter of fact, our founding documents fly in the face of (Expose-Luke 12:21), stand in direct contrast in much of what has and is taking place in American government today.
In short, these criminals mean to steal away what your forefathers and veterans have fought bled and died to give Americans on the behalf of their sacrifices (2 Corinthians 5:15).
Our forefathers set forth an example for their posterity to learn from, and their example was clear in exhibition tolerance for tyranny nowhere at no time (Hebrews 13:7). Do you remember friends that during the writing and establishing of our foundations as a nation that there was a revolutionary war going on, so they understood the price being paid for their freedoms.
The US Constitution preamble states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice (Jeremiah 9:24), insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note: A message to those who act on the behalf of those who are violating Americans and their God-given rights need to understand that when they do so, they are no longer law enforcement, but have now become agents of the state. Remember, tyrants cannot do what tyrants do without someone doing it for them. Don’t play the fool.
Remember, America's God-given rights must be fought for because if not, it merely means that they have been forfeited (1 Timothy 6:12).
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Either the American people are going to throw off tyranny within, or the tyrants will throw off their rights.
One must remember as well that these are the same criminal politicians attempting to disarm you that are in fact alluring illegals into this country while Americans suffer their abuse. Government is an extension and a reflection of "We the People" and this is a reflection that does not look American in any sense of the word. They are pushing Americans and their backs to the wall friends, and in the end, inciting a response. Americans must connect with each other and begin to look out for each other against them that have set themselves against the United States Constitution. It is for the American people to draw the line in the sand and resist tyranny at every step, for it is clear as that we once again are dealing with, tyrants here in our homeland.
Back to the time when bullies finally figured out that the people were no longer going to take their authoritative rebellious and oppressive methods... No, wait a second, I will let Flick give you a powerful lesson from a movie back in 1998 called “A Bug's Life” (Matthew 18:3).
Bradlee Dean is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions are his own and do not reflect the views and opinions of the Genesis Communication Network. Bradlee's radio program, The Sons of Liberty, broadcasts live M - Sat here at GCN. This op-ed was originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission.
“So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan.” (1 Samuel 13:22)
Just recently, while taking care of business, I walked into a craft store where a woman was working. At first, I was not sure if I heard an English accent or not. She spoke again and then I was sure of it.
I asked, “Are you from England?” and she said that she was. I then asked her how disarmament was working out for the people there.
She told me that she has now lived here in America for 40 years and that her mother still lives there. She went on to say that her mother was so brainwashed that she has a wad of money rolled up in a secret compartment so when, not if but when, an intruder breaks in, she can tell them where the money is in hopes of them not bringing harm to her (Luke 11:21).
This all reminds me of Annie Hendrick and Sally Skidmore who are two women that live in England, as well. They are both in their 80’s and were beaten by intruders.
In fact, one woman was so tired of intruders breaking into her home, that she put chicken wire around her home. Once the local government found out what she did, they summoned her to court and told her that she must remove the chicken wire, lest it hurt one of the intruders.
The woman I was speaking with also told me that now with all of the Muslims coming into their country, knives have now been outlawed due to all of the stabbings and the police were disarmed in England, as well. I could not believe that a people could be so dumbed down to accept this in any country (Hosea 4:6).
I then asked her if she had seen the video of the 11 British police officers vs. one Muslim with a knife. I have never seen anything so ridiculous.
After viewing the video above, one must understand the reprobate and perverse minds of the system of injustice in England. The reason that they took the course that they did with this madman is because they said that they wanted to rehabilitate him. (Exodus 21:12) You cannot make this up friends.
On the other hand, in 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring all able adults, except convicts, to have a gun. They have only had one murder (From an out of state criminal with a gun) and have had no increase in crime or violence in 12 years! (Final Warning, Grant Jeffrey p. 205, 1995)
In the video below, they also interviewed local prisoners (3:12) as to why they never set Kennesaw, Georgia in their sights when committing crimes. They said, “Stay away from Kennesaw because they are an armed people.”
According to www.americagunfacts.com, 3/5 of Felons say they won’t mess with an armed victim. 200,000 times a year women use a gun to defend against sexual abuse and guns are used save thousands of lives every year. No wonder why the disarmed United Kingdom case study found them to be the most violent country in the EU.
The bottom line is,
“If a violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim.” -Lt. Col Jeff Cooper
In ending, when you look at the Scripture found in 1 Samuel 13:22, you will notice that the children of Israel after many were killed, due to their disobedience to God’s moral law (1 Samuel 3:13), were enslaved and oppressed before the Philistines, and how did they do that? They were disarmed. See how this works?
On this date 13 years ago, renowned writer and creator of “Gonzo” journalism, Hunter S. Thompson shot himself in the head because football season was over, he couldn’t walk or swim, he was always “bitchy” and had lived 17 more years than he needed or wanted to. His succinct suicide note was in keeping with Hunter’s writing style. He made dents, not first impressions.
The one thing Hunter could do in his old age was fire guns, and boy did he love his guns. Apparently not enough to continue living, though. He would probably have a lot to say about our constant debate on gun control in this country. Or maybe he’d have little to say, like “You can control my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.”
I know the man a little better than that, though. In fact, I think the only fact he accepted while alive was “the best fiction is far more true than any kind of journalism.” While I never met him, I spent roughly four years of my life researching his life and works, which culminated in a Master’s professional paper entitled “How Hunter S. Thompson Built Fox News and What We Can Do About It.”
Hunter was my hero going into that research, but my opinion of him changed dramatically as I began to realize how much he influenced journalism of today and made it more acceptable for journalists to insert themselves as the heroes of their stories, but more importantly, editorialize the news. Journalists are telling us how to feel about the news instead of simply reporting it, and Hunter’s success is a big reason for that.
Hunter’s blending of fact and fiction to convey deep meaning through news is a triumphant failure with unintended, lasting effects. Hunter’s most read work, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, was what Hunter called “a failed experiment in Gonzo journalism” because his intent was to send his publisher his notes as his final copy -- without editing. That’s what he saw as Gonzo journalism.
“True Gonzo reporting needs the talents of a master journalist, the eye of an artist/photographer and the heavy balls of an actor. Because the writer must be a participant in the scene, while he’s writing it—or at least taping it, or even sketching it. Or all three. Probably the closest analogy to the ideal would be a film director/producer who writes his own scripts, does his own camera work and somehow manages to film himself in action, as the protagonist or at least a main character.”
Now we have journalists live on the scene reacting to the news as it occurs thanks to mobile phones and the Internet -- and a lot of those journalists are really just actors. Hunter didn’t need to act. He was simply a character. The man was even more interesting than his greatest creation. He reportedly nearly drowned Bill Murray in his pool when they first met prior to Murray portraying Hunter on screen in Where the Buffalo Roam. The story goes that Hunter tied Murray to a chair and told him, “If you can get out of this, I can trust you,” and kicked the chair and actor into the pool. They became fast friends.
Hunter also left the heart of an elk on his neighbor’s doorstep as a birthday gift. In the morning, Jack Nicholson awoke to an entryway covered in blood.
By the time I finished writing my paper, Hunter was more a villain than a hero to me, and I set out to become a journalist and attempt to do the boring, objective journalism of my new hero, Edward R. Murrow, better than anyone ever had, citing vast amounts of reputable sources and changing minds with facts instead of feelings. My attempts lasted six years, and I still wrote a weekly column in the vein of Gonzo journalism, connecting sports and politics like Hunter did for ESPN’s “Page 2” -- some of my favorite work of Hunter’s. I still can’t escape that theme it seems. It’s become an addiction of mine.
I lived my life for a long time based on how I thought Hunter would. “What would Hunter do,” I often asked myself. “Indulge,” was most often the answer. I found myself asking the same question with regard to the gun control debate, but the answer is more complicated.
I don’t own a gun. I never have. I grew up firing guns, though. My grandfather on my mother’s side taught me to shoot a BB gun growing up, and he taught me well. I was one of the best shots in my hunter education class, and the first deer I shot I hit through the neck as it was running away from me. I have a pretty poor sense of distance, but I’d say the shot was between 50 and 100 yards. I haven’t hunted since that season. It’s just not for me. I didn’t feel like I was playing fair. I still enjoy a little target practice, though, which is why when I wrote about what I thought reasonable, sensible gun control looks like I didn’t include a ban on assault rifles.
I watched a man, teary-eyed, saw an assault rifle in half on social media yesterday because he never wants to worry about his gun taking a life, even in the hands of another gun owner. He reminded me that all these mass murderers were simply legal gun owners prior to becoming mass murderers, but I still don’t think banning assault rifles is necessary. Hunter wouldn’t either. That would surely get his blood boiling.
I’m sure Hunter would agree that the mentally ill shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, and while he would likely hate it, he would have a mental health evaluation conducted in order to own a gun if it was required. I’m sure he’d agree that every aspiring gun owner should have to pass a criminal background check, too. And I’m sure he’d agree that taxpayers should never have to pay the emergency room bill of an uninsured gun owner who shoots him- or herself. I’m sure he’d have no problem waiting 10 days or so to buy a gun, but he might take issue with my recommendation of raising the minimum age to own a gun to 21. He probably thinks the drinking age should be 18 again. I can see him saying, “If you're old enough to die for your country, you’re old enough to drink.” If that’s the only issue that brilliant gun nut takes with my attempt at adopting reasonable, sensible gun control policies, I’d say they should be agreeable to most every gun nut.
If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Lock ‘n Load
Another 17 children are dead after a mass shooting at a South Florida high school -- another avoidable tragedy allegedly perpetrated by a teenager with an assault weapon who left the following YouTube comment a year ago: "I'm going to be a professional school shooter."
Nikolas Cruz, 19, who was expelled from the school and not allowed on campus with a backpack after being found with bullets on campus, is in custody and charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder. But we saw it coming and still couldn’t stop it. Why? Because it’s way too damn easy to get a gun in this country.
There are more guns than Americans in the United States. There are 112.6 guns per 100 residents. Next on the list is Serbia at 75.6 guns per 100 residents. But addressing the number of guns available is problematic given the gun lobbyists and Conservatives clutching their firearms until death do they part.
The typical Conservative will tell you there isn’t much difference between the number of mass shootings in America compared to, say, Europe, citing statistics from the Right-leaning, often erroneous and mostly fraudulent Crime Prevention Research Center. They are, of course, wrong. On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in America, and there are 29.7 homicides by firearm per one million Americans, according to 2012 numbers. The next most is 7.7 homicides per one million Switzerland residents.
But how do we keep these tragedies from happening? How do we keep guns out of the hands of people like Cruz? Addressing the ease of access to guns is easy. Here’s what I think reasonable, sensible gun control looks like.
The only teenagers owning firearms should be members of the military. If 18 is too young to drink or use cannabis recreationally, then it’s too young to own a gun. Both drinking and using cannabis are less dangerous than firearms. Firearm-related deaths are the third leading cause of injury-related deaths in the United States, and young people are more likely to injure themselves with a gun accidentally. Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings from 2005 to 2010 were under 25 years of age, and “such injuries were approximately nine times more common among male than female patients and highest among males ages 20-24.”
I have no problem with children learning how to properly handle, respect and fire a gun or hunt with their fathers and grandfathers. Hell, shooting was one of my favorite pastimes growing up, too, but I was always in the presence of a drinking-aged adult -- even with a BB gun. That should remain the case for those 18 to 20 years of age.
A recent study released by three researchers at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in October 2017, found the yearly charges associated with treating gunshot patients in American hospitals is nearly $3 billion.
American taxpayers should not have to flip the bill for any uninsured American who shoots him- or herself or someone else unintentionally. As of the 2010 census, there were 234,564,071 Americans over the age of 18. As of 2015, a third of Americans said they owned a gun. That gives us roughly 77,406,143 gun owners in America, and if the current rate of uninsured Americans is 11.3 percent, then roughly 8,746,894 American gun owners are uninsured. Everyday, 46 people are shot unintentionally in America. If 11.3 percent of the responsible parties are uninsured, at $900 per uninsured hospital visit, it results in over $1.7 million taxpayers have to cover annually.
Since health insurance is now a prerequisite for gun ownership, it shouldn’t be a problem for aspiring gun owners to undergo a mental health evaluation to prove they are not mentally ill or a substance abuser. This would make it more difficult for the mentally ill to obtain firearms and likely lower suicide rates, as “suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse,” according to the Center for Injury Research and Prevention.
Since the passage of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in 2008, also known as the Mental Health Parity Law, health insurers are mandated to treat mental health and substance abuse coverage comparably to physical health coverage, so the cost to the aspiring gun owner would be modest.
Just 12 states and Washington, D.C. mandate background checks for the sale of all firearms, including private sales that occur at gun shows and transfers between family members or friends. Another six only require background checks for the private purchase of handguns. The other 32 do not require a background check to purchase a gun at a gun show or from a private dealer.
Mandating that all states require criminal background checks to be conducted prior to the private sale of firearms would make it more difficult for those with a history of violent crime to obtain firearms.
I wrote about this back in October, but in summation, the process of adopting a pet is more thoroughly vetted by adoption agencies than the gun ownership process. Some adoption agencies will request the medical history of every pet you’ve ever had to make sure you’re not an abuser. They’ll ask if you’re gainfully employed, and some will even conduct in-home investigations to determine if your home is a safe place for the pet. Gun retailers aren’t coming to your home to make sure you have a gun safe or even asking if you own a gun lock. They’re not concerned about whether you have a job or a criminal history or the state of your mental health. They just want to sell you a gun.
Obtaining a gun just after the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 wasn’t easy -- even for the federal government. There were reportedly just two American armories back then. “In an attempt to equip the militias sufficiently to protect the newly independent country, Congress ordered the purchase of 7,000 muskets in 1793. A year later, it had managed to buy only 400,” according to a story in The Economist based on the works of Michael Bellesiles. So back in the day it took almost an entire day just to produce a gun, and that’s combining the production of every gun manufacturer in the country. By 1808, one factory would produce 50,000 barrels, locks, rammers, and bayonets per year in Britain.
When the Second Amendment was ratified, the American forefathers certainly didn’t think assault weapons and rocket launchers would be possible, but they were also working with a knowledge that guns take a long time to produce. They certainly didn’t think there would come a day where there were more guns than Americans.
Since aspiring gun owners would be required to have a mental health evaluation and criminal background check conducted, a 10-day wait period would give them and the seller an opportunity to fulfill those prerequisites. It would also result in fewer crimes of passion, as those without guns looking to acquire guns in a fit of rage would have 10 days to think about the consequences of their intended actions.
Reasonable, sensible gun control starts with enforcing the current laws on the books. This will be easy once the infrastructure is created to allow law enforcement to view whether the gun owner has fulfilled all the prerequisites for gun ownership.
If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows:The Costa Report, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Lock ‘n Load
So have you purchased your gun insurance yet? In case you shoot someone, there are insurance policies available to cover any liabilities you might face, pay for your bail if you are accused of a crime, cover your attorney fees, and even pay for any psychological therapy you might need. So if you are going to fire away, nice to know that you are financially covered, right?
Legislation has been introduced in six states that would make gun insurance mandatory for all gun owners. New York, Hawaii, Washington, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts would require government-mandated firearms insurance, and several insurance companies are considering offering such a product.
In fact, the National Rifle Association offers scaled down coverage called Carry Guard right now in all 50 states. The organization’s website states rather dramatically that: “There is a whole team of lawyers attached to every bullet that leaves the barrel of your weapon. If the suspect goes down, even if you’re justified in shooting, we guarantee you the world is going to come crashing down on you.”
Should every gun owner be required to buy liability insurance? After all, if you drive a car, you are required by every state in the U.S. to have liability insurance. So, if drivers have to have auto insurance, why shouldn’t gun owners have to have gun owner’s insurance?
First of all, courts nationwide have determined that driving is a privilege. And not a (second amendment) right as defended by gun owners. A driver is generally on a public highway, built with taxpayer funds, and the “rules of the road” require liability insurance. It should be pointed out that a driver is not required to have either a driver’s license or insurance if the vehicle is driven on private property. I taught my kids and assorted nieces and nephews to drive at our family camp in rural Louisiana, where they could practice on dirt roads. No license or insurance necessary.
Based on my experience as a former Louisiana insurance commissioner, I can also tell readers that the cost of such proposed gun liability insurance would not come cheap. New York is presently considering in their legislature a proposal to require every gun owner to have a minimum of $1 million in liability coverage.
I have not sat down with insurance actuaries to figure out specifically what the premium would be, but I would estimate that a gun owner is looking at a minimum of $2,000 a year to pay for such insurance. The insurance premium could be significantly more for someone living in the inner city. Such a cost would price the ownership of a gun outside the reach of the average citizen.
Unless the activity to be insured is considered a privilege, there is no requirement or a “right” to insure any object or undertaking. I do not have to insure my house, but it just makes good financial sense to do so. There is no requirement that an individual have life insurance. One makes such a choice to protect their loved ones when they die. Many people have general liability insurance coverage on any activity that might subject them to a lawsuit. That would include protection against a lawsuit involving a gun accident. But purchasing such insurance is not mandatory. It’s a choice.
With so much interest in gun safety, numerous ideas will be floated in an effort to regulate gun ownership. Certainly there are some people who should not be in the possession of a gun. To many gun owners, the issue is about restrictions on hunting. But to others living in crime-infested areas, and in the face of violent criminal threats, your weapon and your wits may be all you have to protect yourself.
There are no easy answers here. But it’s unrealistic to think that gun fatalities will decline simply by making gun insurance mandatory.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Peace and Justice
Jim Brown is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own. His column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show, Common Sense, each Sunday morning from 9:00 am till 11:00 am Central Time on the Genesis Communication Network.
I’ve been looking to adopt a dog for about two months now, and while I’ve been picky about what type of dog I want to adopt, potential pet owners are subject to a more investigative process than potential gun owners.
I want a dog for multiple reasons. I just bought a home with a fenced yard, so I finally have the space to get the type of dog I want. I’ve always liked big, lap dogs, specifically, those that have come to be called “aggressive breeds” or “bully breeds.” I’ve come to despise those monikers because a dog’s behavior is representative of its owner. So despite having big teeth and a large bite radius, an “aggressive breed” like a Rottweiler is only aggressive if the owner makes it so, just as a gun is only dangerous if the owner makes it so.
Now, if you want to call them “protective breeds,” I’d be fine with that, because that’s what they are -- protective of their owners. That’s just one of the reasons I want a dog. I live in a relatively high crime rate area, especially when it comes to vehicle and home burglaries, but I’d rather have a home security system that acts instead of phoning the police. A dog might not be a better deterrent than those home security stickers people put in their windows, but a home security system doesn’t have a personality, either. I’ll take the personality.
I’ve never owned a gun and have never come across a reason for owning a gun. I grew up shooting BB-guns with my grandfather like most Americans. I even hunted as a child (once) but still never felt a gun to be necessary. The first day I went hunting, I shot a Whitetail doe in the neck while it was running away from me -- the perfect shot for preserving the meat. I was praised by all the old men who accompanied my dad and me, but I wasn’t surprised by my ability. I was the best marksman in my hunter safety course, and yet I still didn’t feel comfortable using a gun. I didn’t think it was fair to the deer. I find bow-hunting more sporting, or even fishing.
I’ve also enjoyed firing handguns for recreation, but that’s not reason enough for me to own a handgun. It certainly wouldn’t be my first choice when it comes to home protection, but it is for too many Americans in my opinion. Stand-your-ground laws have only exacerbated this situation.
I’ve submitted multiple applications revealing more about myself and my home than is required to get a gun. Some pet adoption agencies even require a home inspection, but getting a gun in this country is as simple as attending a gun show with enough cash in-hand or knowing someone with a gun looking to sell. I asked Minnesota Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar whether they thought legislation that would make the gun application process mirror the pet adoption process could pass Congress, and only got a vague, email response from Franken.
“We can...address gun violence by closing loopholes in the federal background check system so that guns don't get into the wrong hands, like convicted felons or people with serious mental illness,” the letter read.
The response doesn’t answer my question, of course, but I think members of all political parties can agree that “gun control” should start with controlling who can get guns. The fact we as a society are more concerned about who owns a dog than who owns a gun reveals plenty about the American way. Dogs, like guns, aren’t inherently dangerous. Dog owners and gun owners are dangerous. A dog in the wrong hands can be as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands. Both can take a life.
If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Lock ‘n Load