Thursday, January 17, 2013

The Frog in the Pot

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest" - Mahatma Gandhi

Obviously, this is not one of the more well known quotes from Gandhi. It has surfaced lately with all the gun control hub-bub we seem to be in the midst of. Such a quote from the Prince of Non-violence is, in itself, something of a shock. There are arguments that he was referring to the weapons of the Indian military and not the people themselves - which could be true, but does it matter in this case? After all, guns are guns, whether they are used by the government or by the people. They can kill people no matter who wields them. The writer, Don Feder, points out that, "The problem isn't easy access to guns, but easy access to oxygen. Certain people shouldn't be breathing."

So currently, there is a mad dash to control certain kinds of guns, specifically assault weapons, which more or less just means a gun that looks like it ought to be in the hands of an army person. That, and magazines that hold more than a certain number of bullets - 7, 10, or ??? Now, I'm not a gun expert or anything, but from what I can tell, does it make sense to take such weapons away from the general public? Is there really a good reason to do this? I mean, we've known for YEARS that "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Is that any less true now then it was decades ago when people first started quoting it? And don't the facts of the matter support that? I mean in the big, mean cities of America where guns ARE outlawed, they have the highest crime rates, while in Switzerland, where owning an assault weapon is mandatory for everyone who is in the military (which is also mandatory for all males between 20 and 30), there is an incredibly low crime rate.

Interestingly enough, guns are certainly NOT the biggest killer. Above them is the general category of knives and bats. WAY above them is doctors, which are one of the leading causes of death in the United States according to government statistics. So, let's outlaw sticks, knives, and bats, and DEFINITELY, lets outlaw doctors.

Now, you may be aware of this, but I'm not that big of fan of government of any kind. I mean, really...what have they done for you lately? Or at least, what have they done for you that couldn't be done easier and cheaper by private individuals? Probably nothing, except rob you blind, give billions to people who don't need it, and so forth. And yet, this very government started with the premise that everyone had the right to own guns. It was the 2nd thing on the list after the right to speak freely and the separation of the church and state. It was important, why? Because they had just had to deal with gaining independence from a tyrannical government. They recognized that the individuals MUST have the capability to deal with their government if it got out of hand. The 2nd amendment was not meant so that people could hunt. It was actually put in there to eternally ensure that the common people would have weapons to fight off the government if they needed to. Every dictatorship in history has incorporated removing weapons from the common person early on.

Now, I'm totally for gun control, but if AND ONLY IF, that includes the government, military, police, EVERYBODY!. Get rid of them entirely. Wipe them off the planet! But to take them out of the hands of the common person when only the government has them is suicide. It's like meeting a bunch of bullies in the park who all have knives and bats and you've got a pea-shooter. Yeah, you may hold 'em off for a few minutes, but ultimately, you're gonna get your proverbial ass kicked, and big time. Now, it's not likely that a few assault weapons against the government's tanks, missiles, drones, bombs, and whatever, will have much effect, but, geez - at least give them a shot.

So, what's with Kermit and the assault rifle? Well, most people know the story of the frog in the pot - or how to cook a frog: you put a frog in a pot of cool water. Then, you very gradually raise the temperature. At first, he finds it quite nice - like a relaxing bath. Ever so gradually, you continue to increase temperature until it begins to cook the frog. By then, it's too late. He has been relaxed into submission, and is easily cooked.

Similarly, if we look at what's happening in the United States and around the world, we are being relaxed into a deep sleep. "Everything is okay," they tell us. "Yes, we've had a little dip in our economy, and some difficulties with the banks, and some of those countries over 'there', but everything is getting better." And then a rash of shootings takes place, culminating in the catastrophe at Sandy Hook. So, do they look at the pharmaceutical drugs all these shooters are on? No. Do they look at the educational system? No. Do they look at the psychological state of the general public, with something like 25% considered clinically depressed and/or on mood altering pharmaceuticals? No. They, instead, go after the weapons that are used, (I wish just one of these guys had used an osterizer or a ping-pong paddle) as if it was the weapon that killed the kids, and not the wacko kid. (Actually the biggest school killing was done by a bomb that killed more than 30 kids in 1927.)

And what a good way to establish trust among the people - take away the one thing that would protect them from the government or wackos (but I repeat myself). And for those of you who have nothing to do with guns, the result of this scare of gun control is that it's virtually impossible to buy a gun or ANY ammunition. The moment the government started talking about gun control, every store and gun dealer had a massive run. The very individuals the government is trying to keep guns and ammunition from - the general population - has bought up virtually every bullet in the country. They've friggin armed themselves to the teeth! Bought up everything with the possible exception of the 1.2 BILLION bullets that the Department of Homeland Security bought. What do they need them for? I mean, they don't fight outside enemies, only domestic ones. 1.2 billion bullets. Geez - that comes out to four bullets for every man, woman, AND child in the United States. So, they've got that big supply of bullets, and the rest has been bought up by everyone else. Even the police departments are having trouble getting bullets right now. (I suppose they could borrow some from DHS "Hi. Excuse me. Could we borrow a cup of bullets?" )

I don't know! The whole things looks like a giant keg of gunpowder (which you also can't get right now) just waiting for the right match. I certainly hope that match isn't the government pushing for more gun control, or GOD FORBID, a gun confiscation. Even some Sheriffs around the country are saying that they will NOT stand for any gun control or confiscation that goes against the U.S. Constitution.

Oh well. If we get through this one, I'm sure some other idiocy will be right around the corner. Damn glad that Kermit has got my back!

1 comment:

  1. well said Aja. The only point that I would add is that the gun companies love this. Assault weapons had been baned before. People will turn their guns in for a starbuck card and them purchase them back as soon as fear arrises again. Fear is the thing to be cautious of, and Home Land Insecurity is heavily investing in it. When one considers how large this country is, we don't need a standing military. We can learn from 9/11 that the 'enemy is us". Even if an "outsider" came to the US to attack, what would they gain? A few blocks of a large city, before the rest of the coutry should up in arms to take back!? That is if they had them.

    (not sure what profile is) but it is I, Aja