Why Jason Alexander's Anti-Gun Twitter Rant Is Hypocritical NonsenseChris | InformationLiberation
Actor Jason Alexander of Seinfeld fame penned an anti-gun rant on his twitter account earlier today. The post made the front page of Reddit and it's getting a lot of circulation. It's an interesting read if not just to see the hypocrisy supporters of civilian disarmament exhibit.
This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15Note, in "civilian hands."
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.
Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:Personally, I couldn't care less what the constitution says, this line of logic is why the constitution is so problematic and is not necessarily a friend of liberty. The language in it is so vague it could be interpreted millions of different ways, rather than create some clear and immutable laws, the document is used by the government, or the people who call themselves "the government," to justify their rulership and give it the false veneer of legality and legitimacy. I'm sure many constitutional scholars could say, "well, that's not what the framers actually meant," but frankly what they actually meant has had no bearing on how the law and the document has been applied.
As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.
Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?The purpose is not for a sportsman, the purpose is self defense. A pea shooter will not defend you against a government with nuclear bombs and flying robot killing machines (drones), neither will an AR15, but at least it's a marginally closer fight.
I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.
Now we get to the good part:
Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...First off, are you absolutely sure of your commitment to anti-absolutism? If so, there's a contradiction there.
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed
And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.
These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.
Nonetheless, government as an institution is the ultimate decider in every dispute, including those involving itself. In America today, the President is judge, jury, and executioner. Barack Obama has assassinated U.S. citizens based off mere suspicion they're "terrorists," he killed a 16-year-old boy from Colorado last year in a drone-strike, and provided no justification nor explanation for why he murdered him (along with other innocent members of his family). How's that for absolutism? Where does Jason Alexander stand on that issue? Because if he's not against Obama's murders, his claim to being against absolutism is pure bluster. Meanwhile, where is "the president has the power to assassinate anyone he pleases based off mere suspicion they're terrorists" in the constitution? Call me crazy, but I don't think it's in there.
Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.He may have had an edge, but the more guns in the room the lower his edge becomes. He didn't stage his attack on a police station, he went to where he thought he could kill a ton of people with ease. Also, most people who are gun owners are trained with them, all the gun owners I've known are very responsible and reserved people who do not "shoot from the hip."
Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out.""We" (the government) do "regulate" them. His purchase was fully tracked and traced, the government had all the information on his gun purchases and put nothing together. We already live in a prohibitionist police state, the government failed to prevent the incident, and it failed to protect the people in the theatre during the incident. If he bought the guns illegally they likely would not have been traced, unless of course he bought them from a Mexican drug dealer the U.S. supplied guns to.
But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.
I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that. Maybe you should read about the recent spate of knife attacks at schools in China. Hundreds of children were stabbed to death by lunatics with knives, disarming everyone in society doesn't make anyone safer. Guns act as an equalizer, they lift people above savage "rule by the strongest" by putting an old lady on the same level as a young steroid freak.
There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia. It's funny he listed nuclear weapons. No one could afford to build a nuclear weapon, only a terrorist government could achieve such a feat through the type of mass wealth confiscation you only get through taxation. Most businesses concentrate on producing goods which enrich people's lives, not weapons of mass murder, that's what government's specialize in.
Here's my favorite line:
These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales. I love this, why then, Mr. Alexander, do you think the government having all these weapons is fine? The U.S. government is the only government in the world which actually used nuclear bombs on a civilian population, they did it twice. (And don't tell me they did it to "win the war," the Japanese had already surrendered, they dropped the bombs to intimidate the Soviets.) Governments as institutions are the most murderous, criminal, terroristic organizations on planet earth, all they do is "wreak murder and mayhem on innocents." (I know, I know, they also build roads... with our tax money.)
I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people. The fact of the matter is the government possesses every "evil" weapon he cites, they have nuclear bombs, a massive arsenal of flying killing robots (drones), tanks, nuclear submarines, attack helicopters (which they used to gun down some pregnant women and children with in Honduras just the other day), endless automatic weapons (which are not used for sport), and a whole host of other exotic killing machines. You don't want a slave to have a gun, but you're fine with George W. Bush or Barack Obama having the nuclear codes. The plebs under this government are "permitted," if they jump through enough hoops, only in certain states, and only in certain jurisdictions, to have tiny handguns and shotguns and some semi-automatic rifles, but only if they prostrate themselves before the state and are granted permission to own them (by the same government which rules them and demands they pay tributes).
Once anti-gun advocates start advocating taking the guns out of the hands of the "corporatists" they claim to be against, then I'll start taking them seriously.
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.
- The American Sniper Was No Hero
- Why I Don't Need To Call A Crackhead Instead Of A Cop: A False Dichotomy Dismantled
- The Truth About American Sniper From An Iraq Combat Vet Marine
- Indefinite Detention: A Hallmark of Tyranny
- The Troops Are Destroying Our Country
- Casey vs. Kyle: On Bloodlust, Loss, and Wars of Choice
- The Pretense of the State of the Union
- Jacob G. Hornberger on 'American Sniper'
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.