Monday, December 24, 2012

The Last Bastion of the Gun


   It's a depressing act to observe the state of the nation that could once be called the United States of America, now more accurately described as the Federated Municipalities of Non-Canadian Anglo-Americas.  Upon the collective sigh of resignation of personal responsibility into federal hands on November 6th of this year, punctuating the end of the punchline phase that is the American joke, and moving into the awkward pause where nobody laughs, an introspective mind (such as mine) cannot help but admire how this nation was transformed from a back-water territory of thanes and thralls in service to a foreign crown into a country of fiercely independent innovators and free minds.  This same wonderful, insightful, and (dare I say) infallible mind cannot also help but look at this once proud peoples as they trip over themselves to surrender any liberties implying the impetus, expectation, or even the slightest bit of one's personal safety is dependent upon the actions at the level of the individual.
     When interacting with other human beings, there are only two methods that can be used: reason or force.  The exercise of reasoning is the ability to convince another person to do something through willing persuasion by use of facts, information, and the logical implications thereof; the persuaded party is making a decision as to whether or not they truly wish to do something.  The inverse of reason is force: the threat of violence, harm, or some other undesirable outcome inflicted should one refuse to comply.  Force is the fundamental basis for all government as we know it today.  If you speed, you get a ticket. If you do not pay your ticket, you get your licence revoked and/or a warrant issued for your arrest. Prison time or any other sort of detainment is force in and of itself, but should you refuse to go, an officer will attempt to force you go. If you resist successfully enough, you will be killed.  This is the nature of our interaction with one another.  The pure exercise of reason is Voluntarism.  The pure exercise of force is Governance.
"Yes, we shall charge into the maw of their machine gun positions.  Those of us that aren't wounded, killed by the enemy, or shot by our own Commissars shall get together and decide if the maneuver was worthwhile."

     Just as Americans can't believe it's not butter, so too do they operate under the premise that their day-to-day life is not lived with a gun to their head.  Over time the laziness of the common man and the idiotic idea that individual freedoms, liberties and desires are somehow subject to approval by the rest of the population has pervaded the collective mindset as an unquestionable truth to life.  You can now be fined or imprisoned (or subsequently killed for refusal to comply) and subjected to state-sponsored force for such trivialities as crossing the street in the wrong place, driving with too much weight in your truck, constructing a shed in your back yard, connecting to an unsecured WiFi network, hosting a poker game at your house, or possessing a gun that fires more than one round per trigger pull without prior permission from the right people.


    Immediately upon news of the shootings in Newton, Connecticut our emasculated, hypocritical, and irresponsible press corps was propping up the first available meat-puppets they could find to speak on efficacy of "assault rifles," "high-capacity clips" and the ability to mow down crowds of people. This ability to kill people on a large scale is, horrifyingly and humorously enough, an ability that they feel only police and military personnel, guardians of the civilians, should be trusted with.
The NRA was apparently tactless and brash in only waiting a full week to issue a statement not supporting stricter gun control, but it's the act of a conscientious and progressive mind to start pointing fingers at people entirely unrelated to a mass killing within minutes of hearing of said act?
     Another disturbing trend was the discussion of "gun violence" (somehow morally reprehensible when compared to other forms of violence) before the last pool of child's blood had congealed on the floor.  In the true trademark of hypocrisy and the non-introspective nature of the contemporary bovineesque American, the immediate correlation of the mass shooting to a perceived need for governmental intervention in the form of gun control is compassionate and reasonable, while to say anything not involving this measure is to "blame the victim" (a Cardinal Sin in Progressivism, the victim is absolved of any blame) and a brash, rude, blatant and ruthless attempt to "politicize" an absolute tragedy.
     American Progressives are the true scum of the earth.  Despite dozens of industrialized countries having been disarmed and socialized to such a degree that anyone who so wished could find a new host that will fit 95% of their stupid viewpoints on inane social issues, they still feel the burning desire to turn this once great nation into their own fetid post-modern shithole, "with social justice and equality of outcome for all."
     Make no mistake, most citizens of the United States are Socialists, Progressives, 21st Century Liberals, or whatever the nom du jour may be for the statist collectivist.  These people bandy about and re-categorize themselves as they see fit so as not to offend their own stupid sensibilities, mostly for the sake of avoiding the indignity of association with dogmas 99.9% similar to their own, but with a differing view on the allocation of federal dollars to the study of the Battle of Grand Port.  Republican, Democrat, Green, or Labor Party, it doesn't matter.  With any sane metric these parties are all center-of-left with only a few minor distinguishing characteristics amongst them, much like listening to Metal Heads argue amongst themselves over the nuances of Stoner, Doom, and Sludge.


     Defining features of contemporary American politics can be divided into two categories: the ignorance in which the political opinionation is formed, and the vehemence that these opinions should be projected onto others. In a culture believed by the rest of the world to be excessively violent and gun-obsessed, a real gun enthusiast will inform you that the average American knows little to nothing about modern civilian firearms, much less military firearms, and the differences between the two.
     The issue of ignorance is a human one.  The run-of-the-mill oxygen thief is incapable of differentiating objective fact from personal opinion ("make health care a right!") and will gladly accept any drivel or nonsense validating these feelings as bona fide facts, with logical weight.  These idiocies are most often seen  en masse, like a DDoS attack or rallying cry wherein the demi-humans think they've disproved a differing view by repeating something blatantly false enough times. This is endemic to the populist psyche; it rejects that any material truth cannot be overruled once a majority consensus has been achieved, and likewise in the face of such consensus no one has any moral grounds upon which to oppose.
     Part two is prevalent in Americans to an alarming degree.  Through the wonders of "democracy" and the façade that is our governmental process, these buffoons have for some reason come to the idea that their vacuum-formed opinions actually matter.  Through the internet, and by extension  intellectual circle-jerk that has become Facebook, the mouth-breathing, slack-jawed proletariat have convinced themselves that not only do they have some idea as to how a pencil sharpener works, but that they also should likewise be weighing in on economic, national defense and civil issues, to say nothing of their expectation that these opinions expressed should be given attention and taken into consideration by legislative, judicial and executive agencies. This is by no means a phenomena exclusive to our decade or even our century, but it seems to be especially prevalent in our fine Western "democracies."

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” 

-H.L. Mencken

     In no other political philosophy is this projection of ignorance made more blatant than in the issue of gun control.  As a rule, to be in favor of outlawing firearm ownership amongst the civilian population one must know effectively nothing about guns.  Advocates have no actual idea of what they want to control or stop, only a vague feeling of safety they wish to attain at the expense of a liberty they never care to exercise. Should you have the misfortune of running across a gun control advocate, they will in all likelihood refuse to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion.  The American Progressive abhors the exchange of ideas; they might conflict with their political worldview and exposes their complete ignorance.  This is the base nature of their coercive system, they do not use reason.  Their political views are not to be truly discussed or open to argument, they are only to be complied with.


     The European, the Asian, the Mid-Easterner and even the Australian have, by majority, accepted their place in the grand scheme of things.  They have taken on the lightened yoke of slavery that is the governed in our industrial era. In their minds they realize that they are the slag from which the valuable elements of mankind were refined, and deserve the mastership over them.  This is the true essence of "natural law."  On some level they realize that they are incapable of freedom despite their periodic squabbles over which statesman they would prefer have lord over them.  In discussion with the average citizen you will not see nor  hear any indicators that they think of themselves as a free, independent, or autonomous personage.  Their life is a collection of activities that their masters allow them to partake in. 

    As Western civilization tightens its downward spiral by perpetuating the practices of ignoring reality through Keynesian economic theory, central planning, and majority rule, its follies are only surpassed by its efforts to negate the consequences of this inattentiveness via the further expansion of said failed policies. They make imaginary money, print it like there's no tomorrow, require its use for transactions, and then wonder why its value has been plummeting more steadily than the popularity of Cheaper Than Dirt's Facebook page following their announcement regarding online gun sales in the face of pending firearms legislation.
"Print more money! Everyone can be rich!"

     Americans are unique in that we still retain one characteristic that sets us apart from all the other glassy-eyed, snot-nosed people's states of the rest of the civilized world: a right to firearm ownership.  With Canada as a distant runner-up, nowhere else in the world can someone legally purchase such a diverse selection of firearms.  The United States is a singular point in the Western world where modern amenities, centralized government, industrial might, and firearm ownership conjoin.
     While this by no means makes the American who so chooses to own a firearm any more of an ungoverned entity than the average Democrat voter, it is a fundamental step down the path of autarchy and self-realization.  Your feminized political cuckold of a "man" screeching for greater restrictions or outright banning of ownership is no more free and morally upright a being as John Wayne Gacy was an spokesperson in progressing and mending the image of clowns as being creepy.  This type of post-agrarian weenie will generally fall into two groups: the petty tyrant and the ostrich.  Both have the same view on firearm ownership, where one is in a category to be able to maintain their own access to guns for the sake of his own tyranny, while the other is denying the reality of his own safekeeping.  Under no circumstances is one able to maintain a stance advocating gun control and still logically lay claim to the advocacy of liberty.  Gun control and freedom are like fire and gasoline.

"No need to make it weird, Jeff."
     The utility of guns lies in that violence is universal, violence is golden.  The threat thereof is the glue that holds our society, our government, and our country together.  The denial of the right to ready and unfettered access to the most current and efficient means of projecting violence to the individual is the logical implication that only the state is fit to exercise the option of violence.  In a totalitarian state this is naturally assumed, it is logical.  The power rests in the hands of the rulers, and there is no real reason why the leaders of such a state would want their peoples to be able to resist them.  The United States, however, is supposed to be different.  As a republic theoretically practicing a modicum of self-rule, the connection between the ability to elect persons to governmental seats would, by nature, go hand-in-hand with the ability to forcibly remove any ruler who would attempt to go rogue and implement a rule ignoring "consent of the governed," an idea almost as laughable as this "social contract" people have been going on and on about.


     The United State's defense of the Second Amendment is the Swan Song for Western civilization, with a notable exception in Canada's loosening of laws pertaining to its long gun registry.  In every other industrialized nation on Earth the governed have ceded their ability to defend themselves in the most effective manner available.  Do not be fooled by Switzerland, often cited as a study in "gun violence" and the broken correlation to gun possession. Those guns were issued to the citizens on the basis that they would take up these arms in defense of the country should the need arise.  Nowhere else do men possess the government recognized freedom to take up arms, should they choose, for no other reason than their own personal safety from both individuals and that same government ...for the time being.
     When surveying the field of politics it is easily over looked, should you be the product of a public education, that the pleas for "compromise" is a ubiquitous feature of any publicity event.  In a fair business transaction this is expected.  Both parties rightly wish to make maximum benefit from their time, efforts, and/or goods.  Candy bars would cost a million dollars if the manufacturers and distributors could get away with it.  Not everybody is going to be able to get what they want.  The event where compromise gets disturbing is when this concept is applied to the revocation of civil liberties as they are upheld by the state.  When any party is asked by the head of state to "compromise" and relinquish their ability to partake in any activity that does not cause harm or impede on the rights of others, this is not compromise, it is merely a euphemism for tyranny.  You get nothing that you want, and the state will eventually get the full extent of what it wants over several more such "compromises."  Any such argumentation is nonsense anyway, as the word compromise can only be applied to voluntary actions, and just try to abstain from the laws passed as a result of any compromise applying to the Second Amendment.
"Compromise time, asshole!"
     Above anything else,  look at the direction from which the sides are coming.  Those wishing to preserve their liberties and freedoms to keep and bear arms are doing so because they have established a point at which they are willing to risk their own lives, and if necessary die. They stand for the preservation of what they already have, to be protected and guarded by themselves and at their own expense.  Opposing these people are the those who are attempting to force others into compliance with their view of the way things should be.  They invariably do this through the use of proxy forces and middlemen.  By expanding the threat of violence, enforced by people with guns, they seek to eliminate their fears of people with guns threatening violence, all while saying that it's not just people that are the problem, but the guns.

People cannot be trusted with guns, so people with guns need to keep guns away from people.

One party is ready to die for what they have, the other is ready to kill to take it.

1 comment: