informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Analysis posted Jul 22 2012, 11:24 PM Category: Commentary Source: InformationLiberation Print

Why Jason Alexander's Anti-Gun Twitter Rant Is Hypocritical Nonsense

Chris | 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-15

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.
Note, 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:

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
1
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
2
: 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.
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.
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?

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.
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.

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...
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.
First off, are you absolutely sure of your commitment to anti-absolutism? If so, there's a contradiction there.

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."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.
"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.
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.





Latest Commentary
- Is Science Investment Always a Good Thing?
- Perpetual Fear Under Empire
- Would Appointing a War Criminal as Commissioner Redeem the NFL?
- Barack Obama: Terrorist
- Russell Brand: Will Obama's Bombs Stop Beheadings?
- Shorter Obama War Speech... The Top Five List
- Obama Follows Bush's Iraq Playbook
- 'Obama Snubbed at Top Golf Clubs'









Comments 41 - 60 of 60 Add Comment < Page of 3
TimAng

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 12:29 AM

Link
George (Can't Stand Ya) Costanza's anti-gun rants are total nonsense. Chris is absolutely right.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 12:49 AM

Link
193200 wow.. what a convincing argument you didnt make.

stating your opinion doesnt make anyone absolutely right or wrong, but lets see, if you had of backed it up with a follow up statement at least.. something like, allowing nutcases to have access to fully automatic weapons is a stupid idea, then at least you would have had a point, besides the one on the top of your head.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 2:16 AM

Link
193200 http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Specious-Stupid-Argum-by-Rob-Kall-120723-440.html

"What I see are lapdogs for the right wing who vote right wing because they buy the propaganda.

Gun control works. There are still incidents and exceptions, but it still works. The argument that if there were gun control and laws people would use gasoline or knives for terrorist or mass killing attacks instead is just so, so stupid and weak. The suggestion that there was still a case in Canada, does not detract from the argument. Canada's gun deaths are so, so much lower.

Then there are the gun carry law supporters. Even those laws could still exist at the same time that automatic weapons could be banned. Seventy year olds could still shoot thugs robbing convenience stores, as gun law regulation opponents seem to like to cite. "
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 4:21 AM

Link
65110 Gun control gives the government the power to deny you a gun.

And psychos will still get their guns, gun control or not.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 4:22 AM

Link
65110 This very moment, government drones are assassinating innocent people under the guise of fighting terrorism. Fact.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 4:24 AM

Link
65110 The purpose? To show you they are in control, that you can do nothing about it and that you better behave as they say or else.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 4:45 AM

Link
65110 How do you prevent the government and its agents from misusing weapons? Without weapons, you can't. End of story.

"Gun control laws don't apply to government and its agents", you'll be told.

Duh.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 4:53 AM

Link
65110 Governments tend to expand, and Big Government can't get bigger if people can defend themselves.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 5:08 AM

Link
193200 youre chris' brother arent you.. stupidity this serious can only be genetic..

its quite obvious you have as much comprehension ability as a brick wall - but even a brick wall would make more sense than you..

heres 50 cents chuckles, go rent a clue..
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 7:43 AM

Link
65110 It is you who don't understand that the "psycho" ban is a pathetic government excuse to disarm the population...
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 8:12 AM

Link
99229 Sounds like Jasons' gone through a lot of dictionaries before he vented.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 9:15 AM

Link
24150 You're not the sharpest tool in the shed now, are you?
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 10:38 AM

Link
65110 Dictionary for the win!

Such a spontaneous and un-sponsored rant.
DuoMaxwell

Posted: Jul 24 2012, 9:01 PM

Link
24197 There's more than that.

http://twitchy.com/2012/07/20/disgraceful-celebs-bloomberg-and-piers-morgan-use-colo-shooting-to-push-gun-control/
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 25 2012, 10:19 AM

Link
65105 So the idea of having a Well Armed Militia is OK, but with no guns?
If the government controls the guns where would you get them if you needed them? What a sad day when the citizens who are able to vote (not to mention illegals) are this ignorant.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 25 2012, 5:06 PM

Link
209212 your right it says : 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."
It says the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say : A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
jpepa51@hotmail.com
#maxoutday
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 26 2012, 12:44 AM

Link
65110 Hopefully people will wake up before the gun-grabbers have their way...
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 26 2012, 9:35 AM

Link
17103 I realize I probably won't change minds about the dropping the bombs on Japan but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2AhV-QU1_M
Whatsname

Posted: Jul 31 2012, 2:44 PM

Link
6672 To Chris (author of the article), I feel it is worth noting (and you should add this to your article) that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is being mentioned ALONGSIDE of "a well-regulated militia". The Constitution is stating that we have the right to bear arms AND the right to a well-regulated militia. I do NOT see how it is stating that the right to bear arms requires you to be in a well-regulated militia.

While I love the character of George Costanza on Seinfeld, I have to disagree with him on this. He seems to want to push the idea that civilians should not be allowed to bear arms, by implying that they need to qualify as a "well-regulated" militia to own them. Yet I would bet money that he would also say, though he did not mention it, that anyone who DOES qualify as a well-regulated militia should have their guns confiscated if they are a civilian. He would likely say that a civilian militia concerns him even more so.

Perhaps I am wrong about him, though. Perhaps he merely wants to "provoke" civilian gun owners to be certain they are properly trained to handle their weapons. Ask Jason Alexander his position on the Oath Keepers organization. Then we would see his true colors, whatever they may be.
Makes sense to me

Posted: Sep 11 2012, 8:26 AM

Link
6594 There are bullies and older kids in school who do not hesitate to pick in the younger kids. That is why I insist that my daughter carry a handgun at all times. She is only 7 and could not be expected to protect herself against the 6th graders. Sure there are adults administering the school, but sometimes they side unfairly with the older kids.

If we take away our kids' guns they will be defenseless and the inevitable outcome will be their domination and abuse by predators.
Comments 41 - 60 of 60 < Page of 3


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


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.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause' - 09/22Is that a Drill Sergeant or a Police Officer? Belligerent Cop Loses it On Man for Knowing His Rights - 09/22Former Cop, Infamous for Killing a Family's Dog, Has Epiphany About the Broken Police System - 09/22Elizabeth Warren Says US Has "No Future" If Free-Market Embraced - 09/22Innocent Grandmother Shot During Violent DEA Drug Raid in New Hampshire - 09/22Baltimore Cop Suspended after Video Showing him Punching Man Proves he Lied in Report - 09/22Florida Deputies Gun Man Down as His Son Tries to Explain that He's Deaf - 09/23Judge Beverly J. Woodard - 09/22

Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-ThirdsCop Who Karate Chopped NY Judge In Throat Gets Off Scot-FreeFlorida Cop Smashes Compliant Woman's Face Into Car -- "Maybe Now You Can Understand Simple Instructions"VIDEO: Lapel Cam Reveals A Day In The Life Of A U.S. Police Officer (Tasing, Beating, Breaking & Entering, Stomping On Heads... and Laughing About It)Caught On Tape: Officer Sucker Punches Inmate In Face, Files Report Claiming 'Self Defense'Insult Person On Twitter, Go To JailSWAT Team Brings TV Crew To Film Raid Against Threatening Internet Critic -- Raids Innocent Grandma InsteadCop Karate Chops NY Judge In The Throat
(more)

 
Top