The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Petras Archive
United States: the Political Economy of Massacres
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Every year over 30,000 Americans are killed by gunfire. Every month, in public schoolyards, dance clubs, concert venues, work places and public gatherings, innocent people are slaughtered by assassins wielding legally purchased high powered semi-automatic weapons. The National Rifle Association (NRA), a 3 million-member organization, supports and sponsors free and easy access to military-level weaponry. The vast majority of US legislators, Presidents and judges support the possession of the very weapons responsible for massacres.

The question is why does the US political system bemoan the frequent occurrence of mass shootings, and yet turn around and endorse the political process that makes these killings possible? The size, scope and duration of massacres requires that we examine the large-scale, long-term systemic features of the US political economy.

The Politics of Wars: Massacres Abroad as ‘All American’ Heroism

The US government has engaged in multiple bloody wars where it has massacred millions of civilians – including whole families in their homes – representing no conceivable threat to the American people. The wars feature the success of destruction and death as a means to advance US political programs. War criminals are honored. Domestic political conflicts and social problems are resolved by destroying invented adversaries and entire nations.

In a political economy where overseas massacres are perpetrated by democratically elected leaders, who is to question the behavior of ‘a neighborhood sociopath’ who is merely following the practices of his president? This should surprise no one: Wholesale massacres abroad, fostered by our leaders, are reflected in the domestic retail massacre unleashed by the local ‘nutcase’.

The Mass Media: Weapons Talk, Killings Resolve and the Media Profit

Everyday, at every hour, on every media outlet, guns and slaughter dominate the minds, thoughts and fantasies (or nightmares) of viewers, especially the millions who absorb ‘the message’. Films, TV programs and computer games are saturated with conflicts resolved by guns, killing victims – whether police or civilians. Problems are solved through violence.

The message of the mass media is that victories come from mass killings.

Wars and killings are portrayed in a wide variety of settings: Homes, public buildings, public schools, workplaces, streets and plazas.

If wars and massacres are essential in this political system, the mass media ensures that it permeates and normalizes in the minds of the masses.

Economy

Weapons, used in massacres, represent a very lucrative business: The manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, gun clubs, and police and military institutions all thrive in this free marketplace of murder. The arms industry thrives on wars and media messages – and mass consumption. Political leaders rely on the gun economy to finance their election campaigns. Politicians approve of wars, gun industries and associations. They perpetuate the conditions for massacres. Big business is protected from massacres at home, school and play. Why would the CEO’s and political elites worry about public school massacres when their own children are safe in expensive private schools? After all, votes and profits are at stake. Only ‘losers’ send their children to dangerous public schools. The ‘winners’ have safe alternative…

Alternatives

To confront the epidemic numbers of mass shootings, changes in the political economy are essential.

1. Replace the policies of imperial wars with the promotion of diplomacy, negotiations and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

2. Replace the mass media gun culture with cultural values of solidarity and safe, publicly engaged communities.

3. Replace the mania to possess military-level weapons among civilians with a vision of one’s life built around a healthy environment shared among socially engaged neighbors.

4. Outlaw or regulate gun clubs and militias – abolish the sale of military-level weapons used in these massacres. Guns used for marksmanship and hunting are separate from the weapons of war used to slaughter dozens of small children huddled in their classroom.

Fake and Positive Approaches to Massacres

President Trump proposed to arm school teachers as a ‘solution’ to school massacres. This is a bizarre alternative that will only exacerbate the spread of weapons, encourage more shooting and massacres, undermine the role of teachers as educators and create new ‘role models’ for would-be assassins. Trump’s proposal also underscores his administration’s profound contempt for the role of public education and public educators in building a healthy society. His tendency to blame the victims…’if only the teachers were armed…’ shows the grotesque Social Darwinism inherent in his ideology as he seeks to utterly destroy the public sector. The children of the elite and politicians do not have to attend their French or calculus classes taught by armed teachers. According to the logic of Trump and the political and business elite, armed shootouts in the public school class rooms merely underscore the need to dissolve the Departments of Education at all levels, as well as all public services in this nation.

Teachers should be able to focus their work on educating students to become productive, competent citizens who prize community and cooperation over weapons and war. They should graduate students who can critically evaluate the role of the mass media in promoting violence. They should provide their students with the civic skills to mobilize against political leaders who have accepted bribes (‘donations’) from death cults, like the NRA.

Community organizers can boycott businesses that provide political and material support to the war mongers, militias and other gun-toting extremists to stop the violence.

National legislation should be passed, limiting firearms to very specific areas and events, like shooting clubs or hunting.

Individual gun owners should be licensed based on strict psychological criteria and renewal of license should be frequent. The US military must inform local civilian authorities of any criminal violent behavior of its discharged soldiers; they cannot just release a ‘ticking time bomb’ into the civilian population they are sworn to protect. Mental illness is a public health issue and public funds for hospitals and facilities to identify and treat individuals should be increased. The mentally ill should not be warehoused in and out of the jails or dumped on the streets.

Gun dealers and gun shows should be regulated and forced to follow procedures or face penalties.

Hunters should use weapons appropriate to the game they are shooting. Semi-automatic firearms are not appropriate for hunting deer, rabbits or turkey. Semi-automatic weapons are used for hunting and killing human beings, including unarmed children in their classrooms.

Conclusion

Cultural, political and economic changes can take place over time but require mass sustained struggles. In the meantime, short term reforms that regulate and reduce the frequency and fatality of local massacres should be implemented.

ORDER IT NOW

The scenario where police cordon off the site of a mass shooting , preventing medics and ‘first responders’ from entering quickly to stabilize the wounded, while protecting themselves – a process that may take over an hour and lead to avoidable deaths by treatable blood loss, has to be exposed and rectified. ‘Golden minutes’, the time when injured victims can be stabilized by routine emergency measures and transferred to higher level facilities for life saving surgery and replacement of lost blood, are being wasted while ‘SWAT Teams’ gear up and ‘secure the perimeter’ through a choreographed series of maneuvers to ensure ‘force protection’ (a euphemism for protecting the police). The horrendous rate of mortality in these shooting, 100% of the young victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School, is a scandal – especially in view of the silence that followed. Clearly the local and state coroners and police are covering up information regarding the role that preventing the rapid entry of emergency medics played in such high mortality. Independent investigation of this deliberate police delay in providing life- saving care should be a priority.

Virtually all school massacres have been committed by individuals known to the police or community for erratic behavior and domestic abuse. The local police or family knowledge that these demented, homicidal individuals had access to military level firearms and did not act on repeated complaints requires independent investigation at the state and federal level. Laws and statutes regarding preventative hospitalization or detention of such unstable abusers must be enforced. There should be a national commission to investigate the state of mental health treatment resources in the US. It is long overdue. Rather than demanding that school teachers arm themselves, quality mental health facilities at the state and local level must be established. It is not enough to merely warehouse the mentally ill in the local jails for misdemeanor offenses and then discharge them back into the streets without support.

Public schools and teachers must be supported. The decades-long policy of undermining basic public services, like public education, in favor of ‘school choice’ – a euphemism for privatizing education – and making education a privilege for the wealthy rather than a right of free citizens – must be reversed. Rather than one lone teacher in a classroom (preferably armed – according to President Trump and the NRA) with forty students, each classroom should have three competent teachers working together to ensure that the students are advancing in the various subjects necessary for their future as free and productive citizens. It is a scandal that the US Department of Education and its Secretary of Education have been absent and silent following the frequent school massacres. However, it is not surprising, considering the priorities of the upper officials of the Department of Education who come from the elite, and, in the case of current Secretary Betsy DeVos, from the billionaire class. They have never entered a public educational facility. Their children are either ‘home-schooled’ with private tutors or attend elite private academies. Their policies in undermining public education reflect their ideological hostility to the entire notion of public welfare. Trump’s blaming the school teachers for being unarmed in their class rooms shows most clearly his own contempt for public education and the working and middle class families who entrust their children to the public education systems across the country.

These events occur in the public space, a space once trusted and free to all free citizens – public schools have been the foundation of providing for a free and productive citizenry. It is no accident that mass school shootings take place exclusively in public schools. The worthy children of the elite are safe in their fortress-like homes and highly selective private schools. Their highly qualified teachers are free to teach, unencumbered by concealed weapons or any disruption by any ‘active shooter’ drill. These children have guaranteed futures.

The situation for the children of the working and middle classes is far more uncertain. Access to quality education is no longer a right and a duty for free and productive citizens and their families. At most, youth may have ‘access to educational loans’ at usurious interest rates that fetter them to decades of debt peonage, while the students from the wealthy classes are free to pursue their careers and develop their talents. As the deterioration of future prospects for the US youth continues, with the massive shifts of national wealth to the elite, these massacres, as well as suicides, deaths from overdose and domestic and overseas wars will only grow. There is a sociopolitical context in which this occurs: deliberate decisions made at the top spawn horrors and mayhem at the base.

There is a class basis for the nightmares gripping working and middle-class parents, teachers and students across the country. Security, quality education and quality health care are increasingly the private, exclusive domain of the elite . The elite-driven policies, starting with the reign of President Ronald Reagan, have engineered the breakup of public mental health facilities and the mass release of unstable vulnerable, as well as violent, citizens into unprepared communities. Those who suffer from the consequences of these policies mean nothing to the elite political classes – except for photo-op funerals. Elite-driven policies, implemented under the bi-partisan administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, Jr., Barack Obama and Donald Trump, are furthering the agenda of shredding the public sector and privatizing the wealth and institutions of the nation.

The massive lowering of taxes, under the tax bill passed by Donald Trump represents an over one trillion dollar wind- fall for the investor class (finance elite) at the expense of the public institutions and safety nets serving the working and middle classes. The increasing incidence and the location and identities of the victims of mass shootings are not random: They are class-defined and reflect the loss of citizen power. The winners in this class war from the top will shed crocodile tears at media events while privately ridiculing the victims’ families for relying on public institutions.

The decisions, made at the top, which have given birth to this epidemic of mass public school shooting, as well as the parallel epidemics of suicide and overdose among the working and middle classes, have immensely benefited the elite. The billionaires and the donors to both political parties have no incentive to reverse course and implement reforms or policies designed to bring back citizen rights and the public space. Only the friends, families and neighbors of the working and middle-class victims, those who are secretly viewed as ‘losers choosing to send their children to public institutions’, can unite to change this and bring back social and economic justice to honor the innocent dead and offer a just and dignified future to their children. It is not a matter of arming teachers, or of wrapping small pupils in ‘bullet proof blankets’, while the elite blame us for our suffering from the safety of their mansions. Understanding the class basis for this crisis will help form the foundation for real solutions.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Gun Control 
Hide 32 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The foundational myth and the model for warmaking in the USA is the Civil War. Civil wars are always incredibly bloody, the American Civil War especially so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. DFH says:

    The reason the US has so many murders is black people, not guns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. “. . .the very weapons responsible for massacres.”

    I stopped reading. Anyone who thinks that inanimate objects have agency and do things themselves is either so stupid or so dishonest that there is no point taking anything he says seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    "Anyone who thinks that inanimate objects have agency and do things themselves is either so stupid or so dishonest"
    Quite right. This is why death by ice cream stick & nuclear bombs are completely equal. Both lack human agency so either ban both or ban neither.
    Guns don't kill people, people kill people. People armed with ice cream sticks are as likely to kill as those armed with guns, because its ALL ABOUT AGENCY, not MEANS or CAPACITY. All means of killing people are equal, (I bet I can kill 100 people with a kitchen whisk as easily as someone with an AR 15, probably quicker, although I might have to "cheat" & use cyanide...so dont bother telling me possession of poisons, including anthrax, sarin or VX should be criminalised or prohibited) only the agency of the individual is of relevant moral consideration. (Which is why I dont trust people who eat ice cream)
    Mum's buying me an ICBM for Xmas, but dont worry, its me who'll kill millions not the rocket)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Michelle says:

    The problem with inability to incarcerate the dangerously mentally ill in California was a double whammy. Both the ACLU and Reagan working in tandem to screw the hell out of us “Normies”. The far Left and the far Right are both crazy!! Strange bedfellows. Most peculiar, Mama!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. John508 says:

    It’s so easy to clamor for any weapons to be kept away from the mentally ill, but who determines mental illness or sanity? The psychiatric profession until recently had homosexuality as a mental disorder, and I doubt that any of today’s liberals would be comfortable with that classification. Vast numbers of kids are being diagnosed as ADD or ADHD, which in years past meant simply that they were kids and that’s what kids do, and now they are medicated, and presumably this could be called a mental illness, so when they grow up no guns for them. I can see where some medical group decides that conservatives as a group are mentally ill and therefore no guns. This is just a very dangerous road to embark on and virtually no one thinks through what the consequences may be.

    Backing up a ways to the thesis of this author, which I restate as guns are evil and no one needs them for anything, is displaying a basic ignorance of history and natural law that while breathtaking is all too common. Natural law states that every creature has a right to self defense unless it wants to go extinct. Simply put, weapons are to humans what a cat’s claws and teeth are for a cat. Historically the second amendment had nothing to do with hunting or marksmanship but simply as an additional check on government, which almost inevitably tries to turn despotic. Governments always and ever can only enforce their laws either through the populace accepting the legitimacy of the law, or at the point of a gun. Having a well armed populace that is capable of effective resistance up to and including the violent overthrow of a despotic government (read the Declaration of Independence for support of this point) makes the government remain responsive and reasonable for those it seeks to govern. Eliminate private weapon ownership and then having that monopoly on violence enables the government to do whatever it wants to the people with no possible recourse from the people, for examples of where this leads, simply look at any democide in history.

    In short, the idea of this article is simply to lick the balls of our rulers and hope we will be the last to go to the gulag. It may sound reasonable to a Canadian professor of Sociology, but for this American, no thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree.
    Well written and presented, IMHO.
    , @Jonathan Mason
    It’s so easy to clamor for any weapons to be kept away from the mentally ill, but who determines mental illness or sanity? The psychiatric profession until recently had homosexuality as a mental disorder, and I doubt that any of today’s liberals would be comfortable with that classification.

    I am perfectly comfortable with that classification of homsexuality, but then I am nonpartisan, conservative in some ways and liberal in others. Wanting to bugger a boy is fine, but wanting to marry him is crazy and the kind of excess that even the worst of the Roman emperors only did occasionally.

    Mental illness or sanity is usually determined by a psychiatrist, which is a person qualified and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.

    Most people never have contact with a psychiatrist, but if a person is arrested and their behavior appears to custodians to be abnormal, they will probably be evaluated by medical personnel so that a determination can be made as to whether the person is drunk, under the influence of drugs, has a brain injury, one of various types of dementia, or is suffering from a functional mental disorder.

    It seems entirely reasonable that if a person is the subject of regular calls for law enforcement to come to their home, or certain other situations such as threatening teachers or public officials, then they should be evaluated for suitability to purchase or own weapons.

    Perhaps applicants to buy guns could complete a multichoice personality test and then be examined by a psychiatrist if the scores indicate extreme abnormality.

    , @Joe Levantine
    Excellent article to which we may add that this shooting trend has never been a part of American history. That this mass shooting epidemic is limited by and large to the last 2 decades should make us ask the question : cui bono.
    There is no doubt that any government would love nothing more than to have a total monopoly over violence. Hence, most liberals who are in love with big and all domineering government, hate the idea that a private citizen can challenge the government's exclusive right to resort to violence even in an act of pure self defence.
    Thus, the war against the second amendment is being promoted by phoney massacres that by and large do not stand up to scrutiny. Here it is important to mention Professor James Fetzer's book 'Nobody Died At Sandy Hook' which was banned by Amazon even though more than nineteen other books supporting the official narrative are still being promoted.
    With respect to the latest high school massacre, please tune to Paul Craig Roberts article " Why is Google/YouTube taking down these videos and threatening the sites that post them?"
    As for those who trust psychiatrists to carry out a task that is so heavily politicised, I caution the naive to think twice, for those psychiatrists will end up being another layer of the governmental bureaucracy whose only aim is to subjugate the political opposition by depriving citizens from the right of defending themselves against the tyranny of governments.
    Let us not forget that both Facsism and Bolchevism shared the policy of preventing any citizen from the possession of firearms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. We need high-powered weapons to protect ourselves from this “socially-engaged” SJW.
    What a bunch of socialist drivel. I wonder sometimes if anyone under 50 is even aware that history exists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @stillstein
    Before the adoption of the "AR" design to replace the M-14, the only uses for the hot-loaded .22-.27 calibers I ever heard discussed were for long-range shots at small- and medium-size game. And the use of surplus military long guns in .30 calibers for hunting was common--Garands, Springfields, Mausers, etc., for, they were inexpensive and the ammo' was, too. The initial design for what became the AR carbine was susceptible to jams; it was after the re-design that its reputation as a reliable autoloader ("semi-automatic firing") grew. Remove the military-style mounting of the loading and firing components, and what's left is a moderately priced carbine chambered for a hot-load .22. To those who oppose private ownership of firearms, this is "a high-powered military weapon." God forbid they get it straight that a Civil-War black-powder musket is .58 caliber.......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. peterAUS says:
    @John508
    It's so easy to clamor for any weapons to be kept away from the mentally ill, but who determines mental illness or sanity? The psychiatric profession until recently had homosexuality as a mental disorder, and I doubt that any of today's liberals would be comfortable with that classification. Vast numbers of kids are being diagnosed as ADD or ADHD, which in years past meant simply that they were kids and that's what kids do, and now they are medicated, and presumably this could be called a mental illness, so when they grow up no guns for them. I can see where some medical group decides that conservatives as a group are mentally ill and therefore no guns. This is just a very dangerous road to embark on and virtually no one thinks through what the consequences may be.

    Backing up a ways to the thesis of this author, which I restate as guns are evil and no one needs them for anything, is displaying a basic ignorance of history and natural law that while breathtaking is all too common. Natural law states that every creature has a right to self defense unless it wants to go extinct. Simply put, weapons are to humans what a cat's claws and teeth are for a cat. Historically the second amendment had nothing to do with hunting or marksmanship but simply as an additional check on government, which almost inevitably tries to turn despotic. Governments always and ever can only enforce their laws either through the populace accepting the legitimacy of the law, or at the point of a gun. Having a well armed populace that is capable of effective resistance up to and including the violent overthrow of a despotic government (read the Declaration of Independence for support of this point) makes the government remain responsive and reasonable for those it seeks to govern. Eliminate private weapon ownership and then having that monopoly on violence enables the government to do whatever it wants to the people with no possible recourse from the people, for examples of where this leads, simply look at any democide in history.

    In short, the idea of this article is simply to lick the balls of our rulers and hope we will be the last to go to the gulag. It may sound reasonable to a Canadian professor of Sociology, but for this American, no thanks.

    Agree.
    Well written and presented, IMHO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Bar says:

    Size, scale and scope?

    All the school shootings are statistical noise. Something like 2/3rds of gun homicides are inner city turf disputes.

    Sir, you fail sociology forever..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    All the school shootings are statistical noise. Something like 2/3rds of gun homicides are inner city turf disputes


    Actually 2/3 of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and there are quite a few murder-suicides too. That's right, gun-owners are actually offing themselves in large numbers, more than 20,000 per years, which is part of the reason why the gun industry is so keen to find replacement customers.

    There is not much turf in the inner cities, but it is true that young black men, often in gangs, shooting each other accounts for a large proportion of other gun deaths.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Jmaie says:

    Not so fast professor, it’s useless to demand such massive change without explaining *how* to go about it. Ralph Nadar was great about listing off all the things wrong with everything, but never a solution passed his lips.

    1. Stopping imperial wars is certainly a beneficial idea, but it’s not clear how this in any way would effect mass shootings by civilians.

    2. I don’t even know what a “mass media gun culture” is, the mass media is generally in lockstep with the democratic party message labeling gun enthusiasts as nuts. As to “safe, publicly engaged communities,” these days those are acceptable only if parroting the progressive agenda.

    3. Military-level weapons are not legally available to civilians (with a few rare exceptions), unless you think the military has nothing stronger than an M-16 and that they choose as their standard rifle the same non-selective AR-15 available at Cabella’s. If you do think that, you should probably not opine on the subject.

    And you may find it shocking, but a heck of a lot of people who hunt (or just enjoy guns with no ambition to engage in mass slaughter) “share that environment with socially engaged neighbors”. It may not be your vision of what social engagement should look like, but those things are not mutually exclusive.

    As to how you would go about achieving such a massive societal change, well, I’m all ears.

    4. Again, not a single mass shooting has been carried out with a military-level weapon. But for the purposes of this discussion, let’s not quibble. There is too much 2nd amendment jurisprudence holding that ownership of semi-automatic “AR style” (Gahd I hate that term) rifles is protected. To remove all such weapons from the public sphere would require a change to the constitution (extremely difficult), federal legislation (almost as difficult) and draconian enforcement. Again, something you’d have to explain how to accomplish even in today’s hysterical political environment.

    Cheers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @John508
    It's so easy to clamor for any weapons to be kept away from the mentally ill, but who determines mental illness or sanity? The psychiatric profession until recently had homosexuality as a mental disorder, and I doubt that any of today's liberals would be comfortable with that classification. Vast numbers of kids are being diagnosed as ADD or ADHD, which in years past meant simply that they were kids and that's what kids do, and now they are medicated, and presumably this could be called a mental illness, so when they grow up no guns for them. I can see where some medical group decides that conservatives as a group are mentally ill and therefore no guns. This is just a very dangerous road to embark on and virtually no one thinks through what the consequences may be.

    Backing up a ways to the thesis of this author, which I restate as guns are evil and no one needs them for anything, is displaying a basic ignorance of history and natural law that while breathtaking is all too common. Natural law states that every creature has a right to self defense unless it wants to go extinct. Simply put, weapons are to humans what a cat's claws and teeth are for a cat. Historically the second amendment had nothing to do with hunting or marksmanship but simply as an additional check on government, which almost inevitably tries to turn despotic. Governments always and ever can only enforce their laws either through the populace accepting the legitimacy of the law, or at the point of a gun. Having a well armed populace that is capable of effective resistance up to and including the violent overthrow of a despotic government (read the Declaration of Independence for support of this point) makes the government remain responsive and reasonable for those it seeks to govern. Eliminate private weapon ownership and then having that monopoly on violence enables the government to do whatever it wants to the people with no possible recourse from the people, for examples of where this leads, simply look at any democide in history.

    In short, the idea of this article is simply to lick the balls of our rulers and hope we will be the last to go to the gulag. It may sound reasonable to a Canadian professor of Sociology, but for this American, no thanks.

    It’s so easy to clamor for any weapons to be kept away from the mentally ill, but who determines mental illness or sanity? The psychiatric profession until recently had homosexuality as a mental disorder, and I doubt that any of today’s liberals would be comfortable with that classification.

    I am perfectly comfortable with that classification of homsexuality, but then I am nonpartisan, conservative in some ways and liberal in others. Wanting to bugger a boy is fine, but wanting to marry him is crazy and the kind of excess that even the worst of the Roman emperors only did occasionally.

    Mental illness or sanity is usually determined by a psychiatrist, which is a person qualified and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.

    Most people never have contact with a psychiatrist, but if a person is arrested and their behavior appears to custodians to be abnormal, they will probably be evaluated by medical personnel so that a determination can be made as to whether the person is drunk, under the influence of drugs, has a brain injury, one of various types of dementia, or is suffering from a functional mental disorder.

    It seems entirely reasonable that if a person is the subject of regular calls for law enforcement to come to their home, or certain other situations such as threatening teachers or public officials, then they should be evaluated for suitability to purchase or own weapons.

    Perhaps applicants to buy guns could complete a multichoice personality test and then be examined by a psychiatrist if the scores indicate extreme abnormality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Mental illness or sanity is usually determined by a psychiatrist, which is a person qualified and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.
     
    Two optons:
    One:

    Hahahaha.........oh............my.............God.

    Are you for real?
    You really believe that?

    For fuck's sake how old are you? Early 20s? Just finished college or something?

    Amazing.

    But, nevertheless, a very good post. Very good indeed.

    Perhaps applicants to buy guns could complete a multichoice personality test and then be examined by a psychiatrist if the scores indicate extreme abnormality.
     
    You...really....do ...not....get...it.
    I mean, it's just funny.

    You, no offense, really, are one of those: all the facts, can talk about them for days, and still have no clue.

    Or:
    Two:
    You are just doing a sort of a good job here. Many could buy it.

    I'd go, 70/30, for the One
    And, yes, really enjoyed your post.
    , @stillstein
    It is, indeed, entirely reasonable to identify and evaluate persons threatening or attacking those around them. But that isn't the issue. What is at issue is the refusal by the sheriff department and the school district to identify and evaluate--and constrain from firearm purchase by means of listing him in the pertinent databases--him. Ann Coulter explains this so succinctly and exactly that I refer you to her comment of last week. None of the authorities involved in the dangerous man's life placed him in the mandated databases. Do we need further law and radical change, or do we need to identify and punish those who obstruct present law?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. peterAUS says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    It’s so easy to clamor for any weapons to be kept away from the mentally ill, but who determines mental illness or sanity? The psychiatric profession until recently had homosexuality as a mental disorder, and I doubt that any of today’s liberals would be comfortable with that classification.

    I am perfectly comfortable with that classification of homsexuality, but then I am nonpartisan, conservative in some ways and liberal in others. Wanting to bugger a boy is fine, but wanting to marry him is crazy and the kind of excess that even the worst of the Roman emperors only did occasionally.

    Mental illness or sanity is usually determined by a psychiatrist, which is a person qualified and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.

    Most people never have contact with a psychiatrist, but if a person is arrested and their behavior appears to custodians to be abnormal, they will probably be evaluated by medical personnel so that a determination can be made as to whether the person is drunk, under the influence of drugs, has a brain injury, one of various types of dementia, or is suffering from a functional mental disorder.

    It seems entirely reasonable that if a person is the subject of regular calls for law enforcement to come to their home, or certain other situations such as threatening teachers or public officials, then they should be evaluated for suitability to purchase or own weapons.

    Perhaps applicants to buy guns could complete a multichoice personality test and then be examined by a psychiatrist if the scores indicate extreme abnormality.

    Mental illness or sanity is usually determined by a psychiatrist, which is a person qualified and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.

    Two optons:
    One:

    Hahahaha………oh…………my………….God.

    Are you for real?
    You really believe that?

    For fuck’s sake how old are you? Early 20s? Just finished college or something?

    Amazing.

    But, nevertheless, a very good post. Very good indeed.

    Perhaps applicants to buy guns could complete a multichoice personality test and then be examined by a psychiatrist if the scores indicate extreme abnormality.

    You…really….do …not….get…it.
    I mean, it’s just funny.

    You, no offense, really, are one of those: all the facts, can talk about them for days, and still have no clue.

    Or:
    Two:
    You are just doing a sort of a good job here. Many could buy it.

    I’d go, 70/30, for the One
    And, yes, really enjoyed your post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @John508
    It's so easy to clamor for any weapons to be kept away from the mentally ill, but who determines mental illness or sanity? The psychiatric profession until recently had homosexuality as a mental disorder, and I doubt that any of today's liberals would be comfortable with that classification. Vast numbers of kids are being diagnosed as ADD or ADHD, which in years past meant simply that they were kids and that's what kids do, and now they are medicated, and presumably this could be called a mental illness, so when they grow up no guns for them. I can see where some medical group decides that conservatives as a group are mentally ill and therefore no guns. This is just a very dangerous road to embark on and virtually no one thinks through what the consequences may be.

    Backing up a ways to the thesis of this author, which I restate as guns are evil and no one needs them for anything, is displaying a basic ignorance of history and natural law that while breathtaking is all too common. Natural law states that every creature has a right to self defense unless it wants to go extinct. Simply put, weapons are to humans what a cat's claws and teeth are for a cat. Historically the second amendment had nothing to do with hunting or marksmanship but simply as an additional check on government, which almost inevitably tries to turn despotic. Governments always and ever can only enforce their laws either through the populace accepting the legitimacy of the law, or at the point of a gun. Having a well armed populace that is capable of effective resistance up to and including the violent overthrow of a despotic government (read the Declaration of Independence for support of this point) makes the government remain responsive and reasonable for those it seeks to govern. Eliminate private weapon ownership and then having that monopoly on violence enables the government to do whatever it wants to the people with no possible recourse from the people, for examples of where this leads, simply look at any democide in history.

    In short, the idea of this article is simply to lick the balls of our rulers and hope we will be the last to go to the gulag. It may sound reasonable to a Canadian professor of Sociology, but for this American, no thanks.

    Excellent article to which we may add that this shooting trend has never been a part of American history. That this mass shooting epidemic is limited by and large to the last 2 decades should make us ask the question : cui bono.
    There is no doubt that any government would love nothing more than to have a total monopoly over violence. Hence, most liberals who are in love with big and all domineering government, hate the idea that a private citizen can challenge the government’s exclusive right to resort to violence even in an act of pure self defence.
    Thus, the war against the second amendment is being promoted by phoney massacres that by and large do not stand up to scrutiny. Here it is important to mention Professor James Fetzer’s book ‘Nobody Died At Sandy Hook’ which was banned by Amazon even though more than nineteen other books supporting the official narrative are still being promoted.
    With respect to the latest high school massacre, please tune to Paul Craig Roberts article ” Why is Google/YouTube taking down these videos and threatening the sites that post them?”
    As for those who trust psychiatrists to carry out a task that is so heavily politicised, I caution the naive to think twice, for those psychiatrists will end up being another layer of the governmental bureaucracy whose only aim is to subjugate the political opposition by depriving citizens from the right of defending themselves against the tyranny of governments.
    Let us not forget that both Facsism and Bolchevism shared the policy of preventing any citizen from the possession of firearms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree.

    Especially with:

    There is no doubt that any government would love nothing more than to have a total monopoly over violence. Hence, most liberals who are in love with big and all domineering government, hate the idea that a private citizen can challenge the government’s exclusive right to resort to violence even in an act of pure self defence.
     
    and

    As for those who trust psychiatrists to carry out a task that is so heavily politicised, I caution the naive to think twice, for those psychiatrists will end up being another layer of the governmental bureaucracy whose only aim is to subjugate the political opposition by depriving citizens from the right of defending themselves against the tyranny of governments.
     
    Re the second paragraph from another thread here about the 2nd, a simple example.

    My questions:
    1. Do you trust US elites with your life and lives of people you care for?
    2. Do you believe that armed citizenry are strong detriment to abuse of power by those very elites?”
    A "prog" reply:
    1. The point that you raise is the result of a paranoid persecution complex.

    So...hehe...anyone here believes that a person with the "paranoid persecution complex" can own a firearm?
    , @animalogic
    There's no doubt that guns have always played an important part in US culture. However, up until the 80's that culture was still more or less non-radical, lacking in extremes, normal in the sense that guns were kept for "ordinary" practices such as marksmanship, hunting, collecting etc.
    Things changed, possibly as a result of changes in the general economic culture.
    Guns, unlike most goods, can with proper care last forever. That's good -- but not good for business. So from the 80's on, gun Co's began hyping up their advertising. Indeed, two key players weren't US Co's but European ones.
    How to get people to buy more guns ? That old M1 from WWII or that Colt 38 revolver still work perfectly, why change ?
    Hype up (firstly) technical advances: shooters need the latest designs. And along come Berreta & Glock. One won the contract to supply the US military, the other focused on Law enforcement. Both had "advanced" designs (large 10-15-17 9mm loads; ceramics etc). Both reaped HUGE cred' from their successes with these State agencies, success which helped increase their sales & sales of weapons by all manufacturers.
    By Obama's election guns has become fetish objects, the 2nd amendment a pseudo-religious belief. The fear that Obama would "take away our guns" was electrifying: gun sales went though the stratosphere.
    And here we are. Guns are now beyond rational debate. Rights or wrongs are irrelevant. Positions are so entrenched they make the the trench warfare of 1916 look like a waltz. And with over 300 million weapons in private hands ( let alone the millions in government hands) it hardly matters what is legislated.
    This snowball is GONE.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Levantine
    Excellent article to which we may add that this shooting trend has never been a part of American history. That this mass shooting epidemic is limited by and large to the last 2 decades should make us ask the question : cui bono.
    There is no doubt that any government would love nothing more than to have a total monopoly over violence. Hence, most liberals who are in love with big and all domineering government, hate the idea that a private citizen can challenge the government's exclusive right to resort to violence even in an act of pure self defence.
    Thus, the war against the second amendment is being promoted by phoney massacres that by and large do not stand up to scrutiny. Here it is important to mention Professor James Fetzer's book 'Nobody Died At Sandy Hook' which was banned by Amazon even though more than nineteen other books supporting the official narrative are still being promoted.
    With respect to the latest high school massacre, please tune to Paul Craig Roberts article " Why is Google/YouTube taking down these videos and threatening the sites that post them?"
    As for those who trust psychiatrists to carry out a task that is so heavily politicised, I caution the naive to think twice, for those psychiatrists will end up being another layer of the governmental bureaucracy whose only aim is to subjugate the political opposition by depriving citizens from the right of defending themselves against the tyranny of governments.
    Let us not forget that both Facsism and Bolchevism shared the policy of preventing any citizen from the possession of firearms.

    Agree.

    Especially with:

    There is no doubt that any government would love nothing more than to have a total monopoly over violence. Hence, most liberals who are in love with big and all domineering government, hate the idea that a private citizen can challenge the government’s exclusive right to resort to violence even in an act of pure self defence.

    and

    As for those who trust psychiatrists to carry out a task that is so heavily politicised, I caution the naive to think twice, for those psychiatrists will end up being another layer of the governmental bureaucracy whose only aim is to subjugate the political opposition by depriving citizens from the right of defending themselves against the tyranny of governments.

    Re the second paragraph from another thread here about the 2nd, a simple example.

    My questions:
    1. Do you trust US elites with your life and lives of people you care for?
    2. Do you believe that armed citizenry are strong detriment to abuse of power by those very elites?”
    A “prog” reply:
    1. The point that you raise is the result of a paranoid persecution complex.

    So…hehe…anyone here believes that a person with the “paranoid persecution complex” can own a firearm?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    My questions:

    1. Do you trust US elites with your life and lives of people you care for?
     
    Not too much.

    2. Do you believe that armed citizenry are strong detriment to abuse of power by those very elites?”
     
    I cannot see it. The US over the last couple of decades has become increasingly dominated by a shrinking number of large corporations who rule every aspect of life, and I cannot see any likelihood of armed resistance being helpful or useful.

    The US bears no resemblance to the tribal border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan where each man and adolescent is a warrior and local tribal rule supersedes central government influence.

    In the US the Native Americans seem to be living quietly on their reservations and are much to dependent of federal goverment money to ever rise is armed resistance to the occupation of much of their historically held lands.

    In Hawaii there is an independence movement of sorts, but it never seems to rise above the level of a parlor game to amuse some native Hawaians.

    Not much going on with the Inuit in Alaska either.

    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.

    So where exactly is the most likely flashpoint in the US where armed citizens might be able to reduce the power and influence of the federal government without getting into stupid Timothy McVeigh type activity, which was really just one disgruntled ex-soldier who could't get his rocks off?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Bar
    Size, scale and scope?

    All the school shootings are statistical noise. Something like 2/3rds of gun homicides are inner city turf disputes.

    Sir, you fail sociology forever..

    All the school shootings are statistical noise. Something like 2/3rds of gun homicides are inner city turf disputes

    Actually 2/3 of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and there are quite a few murder-suicides too. That’s right, gun-owners are actually offing themselves in large numbers, more than 20,000 per years, which is part of the reason why the gun industry is so keen to find replacement customers.

    There is not much turf in the inner cities, but it is true that young black men, often in gangs, shooting each other accounts for a large proportion of other gun deaths.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @peterAUS
    Agree.

    Especially with:

    There is no doubt that any government would love nothing more than to have a total monopoly over violence. Hence, most liberals who are in love with big and all domineering government, hate the idea that a private citizen can challenge the government’s exclusive right to resort to violence even in an act of pure self defence.
     
    and

    As for those who trust psychiatrists to carry out a task that is so heavily politicised, I caution the naive to think twice, for those psychiatrists will end up being another layer of the governmental bureaucracy whose only aim is to subjugate the political opposition by depriving citizens from the right of defending themselves against the tyranny of governments.
     
    Re the second paragraph from another thread here about the 2nd, a simple example.

    My questions:
    1. Do you trust US elites with your life and lives of people you care for?
    2. Do you believe that armed citizenry are strong detriment to abuse of power by those very elites?”
    A "prog" reply:
    1. The point that you raise is the result of a paranoid persecution complex.

    So...hehe...anyone here believes that a person with the "paranoid persecution complex" can own a firearm?

    My questions:

    1. Do you trust US elites with your life and lives of people you care for?

    Not too much.

    2. Do you believe that armed citizenry are strong detriment to abuse of power by those very elites?”

    I cannot see it. The US over the last couple of decades has become increasingly dominated by a shrinking number of large corporations who rule every aspect of life, and I cannot see any likelihood of armed resistance being helpful or useful.

    The US bears no resemblance to the tribal border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan where each man and adolescent is a warrior and local tribal rule supersedes central government influence.

    In the US the Native Americans seem to be living quietly on their reservations and are much to dependent of federal goverment money to ever rise is armed resistance to the occupation of much of their historically held lands.

    In Hawaii there is an independence movement of sorts, but it never seems to rise above the level of a parlor game to amuse some native Hawaians.

    Not much going on with the Inuit in Alaska either.

    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.

    So where exactly is the most likely flashpoint in the US where armed citizens might be able to reduce the power and influence of the federal government without getting into stupid Timothy McVeigh type activity, which was really just one disgruntled ex-soldier who could’t get his rocks off?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I cannot see any likelihood of armed resistance being helpful or useful.
     
    That's your PERSONAL choice. Fine.
    Just do not sell it to other people around.

    I've seen people who would never, ever, fight, not even for their lives.
    Some of them of a ....peculiar....personal moral philosophy, which I didn't get then and dont' get now but do respect. Up to a point.
    The rest are just natural victims. The people genetically wired to fold under violence.

    Your contention simply flies in the face of all those individuals and peoples who fought, by force of arms, against oppression. Including, last but definitely not least, if you are an American, your founding fathers.
    That's.........interesting.

    Maybe you think that it's O.K. to do that for all those, but not for the current Americans?
    If so, why?
    Based on that


    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.
     
    I have a real life examples:
    "Here, where I live in Bosnia, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote."
    "Here, where I live in western Macedonia the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote."
    or one staring you right now in the face
    "Here, where I live in Donbass, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote."
    Hehe...well, maybe you Americans, especially in Florida are exceptional, at least in that regard. Not a compliment.

    So where exactly is the most likely flashpoint in the US where armed citizens might be able to reduce the power and influence of the federal government...
     
    Nobody knows.
    Take a look, one day perhaps, at the examples above. Nobody was able, in those countries, to predict that very spot. And, each time, it is a spot. A small group of people in one location.

    Make no mistake. Some of the best and brightest in US establishment work very hard to predict that. Good on them. I think they'll fail.

    Human nature is a peculiar thing. Especially with people full of resentment and low on hope for better life. Like bush fire. The actual spot is not important; what is important are conditions there.
    I am positive we'll see such events in U.S.

    How are they going to unravel I do not know. What I do know is 5 Ps. More thought out that event is, more planned and organized it is, the higher is the chance of a success.
    The point I am trying to make here is very simple:
    If done well, there will be a success with minimal violence.
    If not done well it will be a failure with a lot of violence and own loss.
    Five Ps again......or proper METT-T, based on proper political base, based on proper socio-economic base.

    Your....problem is that you see all that through "hillbillies" with guns.
    Maybe you simply can't see it as a change in/of society...... by all available means.
    So, not hillbillies in cammo but all citizens of a county. Hillbillies just a minuscule part of that effort.

    Or, perhaps, you are ideologically so far away from the "basket of deplorables" that you simply can't see that.
    That's fine too. Got your team losing the last elections.

    , @Joe Levantine
    Timothy Mcveigh? Are your dead sure the official narrative is valid?
    , @ANONymous

    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.
     
    LMAO just thinking about The Villagers forming a golf-cart posse to chase down Israel-trained, cast-off Iraq war materiel-shielded hi-tech weapon-armed police.

    Toto, we're not in Mayberry anymore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. peterAUS says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    My questions:

    1. Do you trust US elites with your life and lives of people you care for?
     
    Not too much.

    2. Do you believe that armed citizenry are strong detriment to abuse of power by those very elites?”
     
    I cannot see it. The US over the last couple of decades has become increasingly dominated by a shrinking number of large corporations who rule every aspect of life, and I cannot see any likelihood of armed resistance being helpful or useful.

    The US bears no resemblance to the tribal border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan where each man and adolescent is a warrior and local tribal rule supersedes central government influence.

    In the US the Native Americans seem to be living quietly on their reservations and are much to dependent of federal goverment money to ever rise is armed resistance to the occupation of much of their historically held lands.

    In Hawaii there is an independence movement of sorts, but it never seems to rise above the level of a parlor game to amuse some native Hawaians.

    Not much going on with the Inuit in Alaska either.

    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.

    So where exactly is the most likely flashpoint in the US where armed citizens might be able to reduce the power and influence of the federal government without getting into stupid Timothy McVeigh type activity, which was really just one disgruntled ex-soldier who could't get his rocks off?

    I cannot see any likelihood of armed resistance being helpful or useful.

    That’s your PERSONAL choice. Fine.
    Just do not sell it to other people around.

    I’ve seen people who would never, ever, fight, not even for their lives.
    Some of them of a ….peculiar….personal moral philosophy, which I didn’t get then and dont’ get now but do respect. Up to a point.
    The rest are just natural victims. The people genetically wired to fold under violence.

    Your contention simply flies in the face of all those individuals and peoples who fought, by force of arms, against oppression. Including, last but definitely not least, if you are an American, your founding fathers.
    That’s………interesting.

    Maybe you think that it’s O.K. to do that for all those, but not for the current Americans?
    If so, why?
    Based on that

    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.

    I have a real life examples:
    “Here, where I live in Bosnia, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.”
    “Here, where I live in western Macedonia the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.”
    or one staring you right now in the face
    “Here, where I live in Donbass, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.”
    Hehe…well, maybe you Americans, especially in Florida are exceptional, at least in that regard. Not a compliment.

    So where exactly is the most likely flashpoint in the US where armed citizens might be able to reduce the power and influence of the federal government…

    Nobody knows.
    Take a look, one day perhaps, at the examples above. Nobody was able, in those countries, to predict that very spot. And, each time, it is a spot. A small group of people in one location.

    Make no mistake. Some of the best and brightest in US establishment work very hard to predict that. Good on them. I think they’ll fail.

    Human nature is a peculiar thing. Especially with people full of resentment and low on hope for better life. Like bush fire. The actual spot is not important; what is important are conditions there.
    I am positive we’ll see such events in U.S.

    How are they going to unravel I do not know. What I do know is 5 Ps. More thought out that event is, more planned and organized it is, the higher is the chance of a success.
    The point I am trying to make here is very simple:
    If done well, there will be a success with minimal violence.
    If not done well it will be a failure with a lot of violence and own loss.
    Five Ps again……or proper METT-T, based on proper political base, based on proper socio-economic base.

    Your….problem is that you see all that through “hillbillies” with guns.
    Maybe you simply can’t see it as a change in/of society…… by all available means.
    So, not hillbillies in cammo but all citizens of a county. Hillbillies just a minuscule part of that effort.

    Or, perhaps, you are ideologically so far away from the “basket of deplorables” that you simply can’t see that.
    That’s fine too. Got your team losing the last elections.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Jonathan Mason
    My questions:

    1. Do you trust US elites with your life and lives of people you care for?
     
    Not too much.

    2. Do you believe that armed citizenry are strong detriment to abuse of power by those very elites?”
     
    I cannot see it. The US over the last couple of decades has become increasingly dominated by a shrinking number of large corporations who rule every aspect of life, and I cannot see any likelihood of armed resistance being helpful or useful.

    The US bears no resemblance to the tribal border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan where each man and adolescent is a warrior and local tribal rule supersedes central government influence.

    In the US the Native Americans seem to be living quietly on their reservations and are much to dependent of federal goverment money to ever rise is armed resistance to the occupation of much of their historically held lands.

    In Hawaii there is an independence movement of sorts, but it never seems to rise above the level of a parlor game to amuse some native Hawaians.

    Not much going on with the Inuit in Alaska either.

    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.

    So where exactly is the most likely flashpoint in the US where armed citizens might be able to reduce the power and influence of the federal government without getting into stupid Timothy McVeigh type activity, which was really just one disgruntled ex-soldier who could't get his rocks off?

    Timothy Mcveigh? Are your dead sure the official narrative is valid?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. The problem with guns in the US is that there are a number of different, but overlapping agendas.

    If there was to be a general referendum today on repealing the Second Amendment, I am pretty sure that it would be soundly defeated, because a majority of Americans feel the need to keep guns as a last resort means of defending themselves against home invasions and burglars. Guns are also the primary means of committing suicide in the US, which provides a steady demand for guns, but not much for ammunition.

    There would also be a lot of support from hunters, who again comprise a sizeable proportion of the population in certain parts of the US. A further complication is that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which is very similar to rifles designed for killing multiple humans at short range is now regarded as the standard deer-hunting rifle in the US, and people want their venison.

    However the Second Amendment is not about scaring away burglars, but about restricting the power of the federal government, and the NRA agenda is promoted by a tiny minority of crazies like Timothy McVeigh who fantasize about an apocalyptic civil war. Or else it is obsolete, which is what I think.

    There is also little doubt that the NRA is in bed with the gun manufacturers, and is in the business of inventing all kinds of scary fictions designed to promote sales of guns. For example, if ordinary people don’t have guns, then only criminals (and cops) will have guns. The fallacy is that this presupposes that there is a huge underground industry manufacturing and distributing illegal guns to criminals that would continue after legitimate gun sales were banned.

    Even though one would think that everyone who wants a gun already has one, it seems that whenever legislation restricting access to guns is mooted, people are rushing out to buy guns. So the Parkland massacre must have been great for gun sales.

    If teachers want to carry guns in classrooms, I have no objection to that, but I think that most do not. Does the idea of gun-toting teachers originate from teachers, or the NRA? The presence of an armed cop in the Parkland school was no deterrent.

    The West Virginia teachers’ strike shows that teachers can wield quite a bit of power if they choose to. They should use it more to create pressure for whichever laws THEY want to protect schools. They could easily bring state legislatures to their knees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    I fixed that for you:

    However the Second Amendment is not about scaring away burglars, but about restricting the power of the federal government which can result in apocalyptic civil war.

     

    That is what really scares you.
    More importantly that scares your ilk and even concerns, a bit, TPTBs.

    The possibility that the losers in this game could actually try to do something about it. Not just meekly accept their position in the new, globalized world.

    Of course that your "chattering class" would prefer that the things remain the same.

    Their, your problem is, the "deplorables" could have different ideas.

    And, it wouldn't take much, not at all.
    Just...one....decent....city.
    Just one to start the ball rolling.
    , @Joe Levantine
    "There is also little doubt that the NRA is in bed with the gun manufacturers, and is in the business of inventing all kinds of scary fictions designed to promote sales of guns. For example, if ordinary people don’t have guns, then only criminals (and cops) will have guns."
    Isn't the history of prohibition enough to convince you that banning any substance that is desired by the public is a measure that is doomed to failure?
    The NRA's contention that the people who will banned from guns are the law abiding citizens and not the criminal type is no fantasy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. This isn’t the “alternative media” I seek at the Unz Review. This leftist “social scientist” lists the prescriptions and proscriptions the NYT has listed for the last 50 years. That public schools are inferior and undesireable doesn’t occur to him. That the replacement of familial, church/temple, and other intermediate institutions and associations with government has rendered most public spaces vulgar, unsafe, and dysfunctional, and especially the public schools, doesn’t occur to him. (When did academics stop reading the social thought of the last 200 years?) He trusts the government, despite the witness of history; the second amendment was and is, to him, superfluous. He also trusts public school officials, despite their primary role in abandoning (with the Obama regime’s blessing) ordinary policies to refer menacing and dangerous students to the criminal justice system. And the possibility of government black flag events doesn’t occur to him. He even seems to forget that the Sandy Hook shooter’s mother armed and trained him. Let the NYTimes publish this fellow, not Unz’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Jonathan Mason
    It’s so easy to clamor for any weapons to be kept away from the mentally ill, but who determines mental illness or sanity? The psychiatric profession until recently had homosexuality as a mental disorder, and I doubt that any of today’s liberals would be comfortable with that classification.

    I am perfectly comfortable with that classification of homsexuality, but then I am nonpartisan, conservative in some ways and liberal in others. Wanting to bugger a boy is fine, but wanting to marry him is crazy and the kind of excess that even the worst of the Roman emperors only did occasionally.

    Mental illness or sanity is usually determined by a psychiatrist, which is a person qualified and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.

    Most people never have contact with a psychiatrist, but if a person is arrested and their behavior appears to custodians to be abnormal, they will probably be evaluated by medical personnel so that a determination can be made as to whether the person is drunk, under the influence of drugs, has a brain injury, one of various types of dementia, or is suffering from a functional mental disorder.

    It seems entirely reasonable that if a person is the subject of regular calls for law enforcement to come to their home, or certain other situations such as threatening teachers or public officials, then they should be evaluated for suitability to purchase or own weapons.

    Perhaps applicants to buy guns could complete a multichoice personality test and then be examined by a psychiatrist if the scores indicate extreme abnormality.

    It is, indeed, entirely reasonable to identify and evaluate persons threatening or attacking those around them. But that isn’t the issue. What is at issue is the refusal by the sheriff department and the school district to identify and evaluate–and constrain from firearm purchase by means of listing him in the pertinent databases–him. Ann Coulter explains this so succinctly and exactly that I refer you to her comment of last week. None of the authorities involved in the dangerous man’s life placed him in the mandated databases. Do we need further law and radical change, or do we need to identify and punish those who obstruct present law?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @ScientistInHiding
    We need high-powered weapons to protect ourselves from this "socially-engaged" SJW.
    What a bunch of socialist drivel. I wonder sometimes if anyone under 50 is even aware that history exists.

    Before the adoption of the “AR” design to replace the M-14, the only uses for the hot-loaded .22-.27 calibers I ever heard discussed were for long-range shots at small- and medium-size game. And the use of surplus military long guns in .30 calibers for hunting was common–Garands, Springfields, Mausers, etc., for, they were inexpensive and the ammo’ was, too. The initial design for what became the AR carbine was susceptible to jams; it was after the re-design that its reputation as a reliable autoloader (“semi-automatic firing”) grew. Remove the military-style mounting of the loading and firing components, and what’s left is a moderately priced carbine chambered for a hot-load .22. To those who oppose private ownership of firearms, this is “a high-powered military weapon.” God forbid they get it straight that a Civil-War black-powder musket is .58 caliber…….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. peterAUS says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    The problem with guns in the US is that there are a number of different, but overlapping agendas.

    If there was to be a general referendum today on repealing the Second Amendment, I am pretty sure that it would be soundly defeated, because a majority of Americans feel the need to keep guns as a last resort means of defending themselves against home invasions and burglars. Guns are also the primary means of committing suicide in the US, which provides a steady demand for guns, but not much for ammunition.

    There would also be a lot of support from hunters, who again comprise a sizeable proportion of the population in certain parts of the US. A further complication is that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which is very similar to rifles designed for killing multiple humans at short range is now regarded as the standard deer-hunting rifle in the US, and people want their venison.

    However the Second Amendment is not about scaring away burglars, but about restricting the power of the federal government, and the NRA agenda is promoted by a tiny minority of crazies like Timothy McVeigh who fantasize about an apocalyptic civil war. Or else it is obsolete, which is what I think.

    There is also little doubt that the NRA is in bed with the gun manufacturers, and is in the business of inventing all kinds of scary fictions designed to promote sales of guns. For example, if ordinary people don't have guns, then only criminals (and cops) will have guns. The fallacy is that this presupposes that there is a huge underground industry manufacturing and distributing illegal guns to criminals that would continue after legitimate gun sales were banned.

    Even though one would think that everyone who wants a gun already has one, it seems that whenever legislation restricting access to guns is mooted, people are rushing out to buy guns. So the Parkland massacre must have been great for gun sales.

    If teachers want to carry guns in classrooms, I have no objection to that, but I think that most do not. Does the idea of gun-toting teachers originate from teachers, or the NRA? The presence of an armed cop in the Parkland school was no deterrent.

    The West Virginia teachers' strike shows that teachers can wield quite a bit of power if they choose to. They should use it more to create pressure for whichever laws THEY want to protect schools. They could easily bring state legislatures to their knees.

    I fixed that for you:

    However the Second Amendment is not about scaring away burglars, but about restricting the power of the federal government which can result in apocalyptic civil war.

    That is what really scares you.
    More importantly that scares your ilk and even concerns, a bit, TPTBs.

    The possibility that the losers in this game could actually try to do something about it. Not just meekly accept their position in the new, globalized world.

    Of course that your “chattering class” would prefer that the things remain the same.

    Their, your problem is, the “deplorables” could have different ideas.

    And, it wouldn’t take much, not at all.
    Just…one….decent….city.
    Just one to start the ball rolling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Jonathan Mason
    The problem with guns in the US is that there are a number of different, but overlapping agendas.

    If there was to be a general referendum today on repealing the Second Amendment, I am pretty sure that it would be soundly defeated, because a majority of Americans feel the need to keep guns as a last resort means of defending themselves against home invasions and burglars. Guns are also the primary means of committing suicide in the US, which provides a steady demand for guns, but not much for ammunition.

    There would also be a lot of support from hunters, who again comprise a sizeable proportion of the population in certain parts of the US. A further complication is that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which is very similar to rifles designed for killing multiple humans at short range is now regarded as the standard deer-hunting rifle in the US, and people want their venison.

    However the Second Amendment is not about scaring away burglars, but about restricting the power of the federal government, and the NRA agenda is promoted by a tiny minority of crazies like Timothy McVeigh who fantasize about an apocalyptic civil war. Or else it is obsolete, which is what I think.

    There is also little doubt that the NRA is in bed with the gun manufacturers, and is in the business of inventing all kinds of scary fictions designed to promote sales of guns. For example, if ordinary people don't have guns, then only criminals (and cops) will have guns. The fallacy is that this presupposes that there is a huge underground industry manufacturing and distributing illegal guns to criminals that would continue after legitimate gun sales were banned.

    Even though one would think that everyone who wants a gun already has one, it seems that whenever legislation restricting access to guns is mooted, people are rushing out to buy guns. So the Parkland massacre must have been great for gun sales.

    If teachers want to carry guns in classrooms, I have no objection to that, but I think that most do not. Does the idea of gun-toting teachers originate from teachers, or the NRA? The presence of an armed cop in the Parkland school was no deterrent.

    The West Virginia teachers' strike shows that teachers can wield quite a bit of power if they choose to. They should use it more to create pressure for whichever laws THEY want to protect schools. They could easily bring state legislatures to their knees.

    “There is also little doubt that the NRA is in bed with the gun manufacturers, and is in the business of inventing all kinds of scary fictions designed to promote sales of guns. For example, if ordinary people don’t have guns, then only criminals (and cops) will have guns.”
    Isn’t the history of prohibition enough to convince you that banning any substance that is desired by the public is a measure that is doomed to failure?
    The NRA’s contention that the people who will banned from guns are the law abiding citizens and not the criminal type is no fantasy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. I honestly think gun ownership is not the problem. the problem is not allowing more background checks. you want to own an assault rifle, be prepare to have your entire living history laid bare to the govt. it is a dangerous weapon, must make sure only the sane and logical gets it.

    I bet gun owners would be happy if by delaying their automatic rifle purchase by 6 months = lower number of school shootings.

    blaming the massacres on the crazies and not do anything about their easy access to assault rifles is just out of this world level of stupid and criminal in the case of our politicians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @Diversity Heretic
    ". . .the very weapons responsible for massacres."

    I stopped reading. Anyone who thinks that inanimate objects have agency and do things themselves is either so stupid or so dishonest that there is no point taking anything he says seriously.

    “Anyone who thinks that inanimate objects have agency and do things themselves is either so stupid or so dishonest”
    Quite right. This is why death by ice cream stick & nuclear bombs are completely equal. Both lack human agency so either ban both or ban neither.
    Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. People armed with ice cream sticks are as likely to kill as those armed with guns, because its ALL ABOUT AGENCY, not MEANS or CAPACITY. All means of killing people are equal, (I bet I can kill 100 people with a kitchen whisk as easily as someone with an AR 15, probably quicker, although I might have to “cheat” & use cyanide…so dont bother telling me possession of poisons, including anthrax, sarin or VX should be criminalised or prohibited) only the agency of the individual is of relevant moral consideration. (Which is why I dont trust people who eat ice cream)
    Mum’s buying me an ICBM for Xmas, but dont worry, its me who’ll kill millions not the rocket)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Joe Levantine
    Excellent article to which we may add that this shooting trend has never been a part of American history. That this mass shooting epidemic is limited by and large to the last 2 decades should make us ask the question : cui bono.
    There is no doubt that any government would love nothing more than to have a total monopoly over violence. Hence, most liberals who are in love with big and all domineering government, hate the idea that a private citizen can challenge the government's exclusive right to resort to violence even in an act of pure self defence.
    Thus, the war against the second amendment is being promoted by phoney massacres that by and large do not stand up to scrutiny. Here it is important to mention Professor James Fetzer's book 'Nobody Died At Sandy Hook' which was banned by Amazon even though more than nineteen other books supporting the official narrative are still being promoted.
    With respect to the latest high school massacre, please tune to Paul Craig Roberts article " Why is Google/YouTube taking down these videos and threatening the sites that post them?"
    As for those who trust psychiatrists to carry out a task that is so heavily politicised, I caution the naive to think twice, for those psychiatrists will end up being another layer of the governmental bureaucracy whose only aim is to subjugate the political opposition by depriving citizens from the right of defending themselves against the tyranny of governments.
    Let us not forget that both Facsism and Bolchevism shared the policy of preventing any citizen from the possession of firearms.

    There’s no doubt that guns have always played an important part in US culture. However, up until the 80′s that culture was still more or less non-radical, lacking in extremes, normal in the sense that guns were kept for “ordinary” practices such as marksmanship, hunting, collecting etc.
    Things changed, possibly as a result of changes in the general economic culture.
    Guns, unlike most goods, can with proper care last forever. That’s good — but not good for business. So from the 80′s on, gun Co’s began hyping up their advertising. Indeed, two key players weren’t US Co’s but European ones.
    How to get people to buy more guns ? That old M1 from WWII or that Colt 38 revolver still work perfectly, why change ?
    Hype up (firstly) technical advances: shooters need the latest designs. And along come Berreta & Glock. One won the contract to supply the US military, the other focused on Law enforcement. Both had “advanced” designs (large 10-15-17 9mm loads; ceramics etc). Both reaped HUGE cred’ from their successes with these State agencies, success which helped increase their sales & sales of weapons by all manufacturers.
    By Obama’s election guns has become fetish objects, the 2nd amendment a pseudo-religious belief. The fear that Obama would “take away our guns” was electrifying: gun sales went though the stratosphere.
    And here we are. Guns are now beyond rational debate. Rights or wrongs are irrelevant. Positions are so entrenched they make the the trench warfare of 1916 look like a waltz. And with over 300 million weapons in private hands ( let alone the millions in government hands) it hardly matters what is legislated.
    This snowball is GONE.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. ANONymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    My questions:

    1. Do you trust US elites with your life and lives of people you care for?
     
    Not too much.

    2. Do you believe that armed citizenry are strong detriment to abuse of power by those very elites?”
     
    I cannot see it. The US over the last couple of decades has become increasingly dominated by a shrinking number of large corporations who rule every aspect of life, and I cannot see any likelihood of armed resistance being helpful or useful.

    The US bears no resemblance to the tribal border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan where each man and adolescent is a warrior and local tribal rule supersedes central government influence.

    In the US the Native Americans seem to be living quietly on their reservations and are much to dependent of federal goverment money to ever rise is armed resistance to the occupation of much of their historically held lands.

    In Hawaii there is an independence movement of sorts, but it never seems to rise above the level of a parlor game to amuse some native Hawaians.

    Not much going on with the Inuit in Alaska either.

    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.

    So where exactly is the most likely flashpoint in the US where armed citizens might be able to reduce the power and influence of the federal government without getting into stupid Timothy McVeigh type activity, which was really just one disgruntled ex-soldier who could't get his rocks off?

    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.

    LMAO just thinking about The Villagers forming a golf-cart posse to chase down Israel-trained, cast-off Iraq war materiel-shielded hi-tech weapon-armed police.

    Toto, we’re not in Mayberry anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Not a bad point.

    How about a, say, suburb of around 10 000, 1000 gun owners, 50 of them ex-military/law enforcement? With a sprinkle of, say, up to 100 competitive shots. And, yes, around 150 hunters.
    All those, say, 300, organized by an ex-US Army Major (combat arms, experience from "overseas").
    And, all those guy fully supported by, say, 90 % of citizens there. Including a couple of tech wizards, sprinkling of capable tradesmen etc.
    Two days to get ready to "receive" those "Israel-trained, cast-off Iraq war materiel-shielded hi-tech weapon-armed police."

    Still a laughing matter for "intruders"?

    Doubt it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Billy says:

    I think an interesting study of massacres could be done by contrasting Amritsar from Hama. In the 1919 Amritsar massacre the British effective stoked the flames of Indian nationalism by the apparent betrayal of a largely loyal people. Conversely the 1982 Hama massacre not only put an end to years of low level violence by the Muslim brotherhood, but stabilized Syria for 29 years. Massacres can start or stop revolutions, but what are the x factors that make one different from the other? What other examples are there in this vein? It could be worth looking in to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    If...if I am reading you right, you are talking about "state sponsored/executed" massacres.
    Like, a state executes a massacre in a "rebel" area to pacify the region.

    Well, honestly, I don't think that's possible in the current paradigm.
    Politically, socially, whatever. And I am talking about "trouble", 3rd, 4th World countries.
    Pulling something like that in developed world, US in particular.......impossible. Just impossible.

    That's exactly the point that minuscule minority into the 2nd are all about.

    As I keep saying:
    A city, with suburbs, adjacent areas of around 50 000, for example.
    Of course that D.C. employing the full might of US military can wipe out that area, with everyone inside, in half a day, without resorting to weapons of mass destruction. A couple of "Daisy Cutters" and similar ordnance and that's it.
    In a week with more conventional air strikes/artillery.
    That's not the point.

    The point is that, should that "unrest" happen, the State can't simply waltz in and arrest everyone of "interest". That's the only point actually.
    And, no, I also believe that "Fallujah"/similar approach is also not possible.

    The level of resistance simply has to be up to capability to STOP the dismounted infantry supported by, tops, armor with 30 mm cannon.
    Can't even seen 40 mm being used (except hand held grenade launcher and not for HE grenades on top of it).
    No rockets, no cannon, no mortar, no missiles. Not even hand held rockets. Not even satchel charges. Hell, can't see frags being used either.

    And, with the current 2nd, that's easy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. peterAUS says:
    @ANONymous

    Here, where I live in Florida, the idea of armed resistance to the federal (or state) government seems remote.
     
    LMAO just thinking about The Villagers forming a golf-cart posse to chase down Israel-trained, cast-off Iraq war materiel-shielded hi-tech weapon-armed police.

    Toto, we're not in Mayberry anymore.

    Not a bad point.

    How about a, say, suburb of around 10 000, 1000 gun owners, 50 of them ex-military/law enforcement? With a sprinkle of, say, up to 100 competitive shots. And, yes, around 150 hunters.
    All those, say, 300, organized by an ex-US Army Major (combat arms, experience from “overseas”).
    And, all those guy fully supported by, say, 90 % of citizens there. Including a couple of tech wizards, sprinkling of capable tradesmen etc.
    Two days to get ready to “receive” those “Israel-trained, cast-off Iraq war materiel-shielded hi-tech weapon-armed police.”

    Still a laughing matter for “intruders”?

    Doubt it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. peterAUS says:
    @Billy
    I think an interesting study of massacres could be done by contrasting Amritsar from Hama. In the 1919 Amritsar massacre the British effective stoked the flames of Indian nationalism by the apparent betrayal of a largely loyal people. Conversely the 1982 Hama massacre not only put an end to years of low level violence by the Muslim brotherhood, but stabilized Syria for 29 years. Massacres can start or stop revolutions, but what are the x factors that make one different from the other? What other examples are there in this vein? It could be worth looking in to.

    If…if I am reading you right, you are talking about “state sponsored/executed” massacres.
    Like, a state executes a massacre in a “rebel” area to pacify the region.

    Well, honestly, I don’t think that’s possible in the current paradigm.
    Politically, socially, whatever. And I am talking about “trouble”, 3rd, 4th World countries.
    Pulling something like that in developed world, US in particular…….impossible. Just impossible.

    That’s exactly the point that minuscule minority into the 2nd are all about.

    As I keep saying:
    A city, with suburbs, adjacent areas of around 50 000, for example.
    Of course that D.C. employing the full might of US military can wipe out that area, with everyone inside, in half a day, without resorting to weapons of mass destruction. A couple of “Daisy Cutters” and similar ordnance and that’s it.
    In a week with more conventional air strikes/artillery.
    That’s not the point.

    The point is that, should that “unrest” happen, the State can’t simply waltz in and arrest everyone of “interest”. That’s the only point actually.
    And, no, I also believe that “Fallujah”/similar approach is also not possible.

    The level of resistance simply has to be up to capability to STOP the dismounted infantry supported by, tops, armor with 30 mm cannon.
    Can’t even seen 40 mm being used (except hand held grenade launcher and not for HE grenades on top of it).
    No rockets, no cannon, no mortar, no missiles. Not even hand held rockets. Not even satchel charges. Hell, can’t see frags being used either.

    And, with the current 2nd, that’s easy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. KA says:

    Gun doesn’t kill people. People kill.- wonderful useful chants with a lot of holy smoke that cloud thinking

    nothing but a wonderful loud mouthed well preserved convenient polemic !.

    When people are angry enraged and pissed off, they lose the senses of proportionality’s- immaterial what they are using whether it is hand,knife,sticks,or guns]. They use what is available to them readily . Take the gun away,they would end up wrestling on the ground until someone separates them without any fear of being hit with a bullet .

    How many of these mass slaughter could have been stopped by someone’s else gun? Near zero. Has it ever prevented even one?
    Because like that guard in that Parlkand school, the bystander with the gun would most likely walk away instead of confronting the shooter.

    Psychopaths with unstable mind and no treatment do go out to mimic what their leaders doing abroad.

    Angry vulnerable employees low wage workers with grievances and no social support do lose it all sometimes .

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    without guns, these folks will still lose it all but won't be able to go out on lame limb against the society and mow down their neighborhood school children or the equally marginalized poor stressed out co -workers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. KA says:
    @KA
    Gun doesn't kill people. People kill.- wonderful useful chants with a lot of holy smoke that cloud thinking

    nothing but a wonderful loud mouthed well preserved convenient polemic !.

    When people are angry enraged and pissed off, they lose the senses of proportionality's- immaterial what they are using whether it is hand,knife,sticks,or guns]. They use what is available to them readily . Take the gun away,they would end up wrestling on the ground until someone separates them without any fear of being hit with a bullet .

    How many of these mass slaughter could have been stopped by someone's else gun? Near zero. Has it ever prevented even one?
    Because like that guard in that Parlkand school, the bystander with the gun would most likely walk away instead of confronting the shooter.

    Psychopaths with unstable mind and no treatment do go out to mimic what their leaders doing abroad.

    Angry vulnerable employees low wage workers with grievances and no social support do lose it all sometimes .

    without guns, these folks will still lose it all but won’t be able to go out on lame limb against the society and mow down their neighborhood school children or the equally marginalized poor stressed out co -workers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Petras Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?