Posts Tagged ‘social control’

By R.C. Seely

I’VE ALWAYS BEEN AN OPPONENT of Socialism and recent events are one of the biggest reasons why. A few days after Halloween, Rene Boucher, brutally attacked Senator Rand Paul at his residence in Kentucky. The attack has left the Senator in extreme pain and he has five broken ribs from the encounter, which could end up life threatening.

Even with the continuing feud between the neighbors, the motive for the attack was reported as political by the FBI. Boucher is a Bernie Sanders supporter who took his passion to an action and a reprehensible action at that.

This is not a condemnation of Sanders supporters, not all are like this and the ones I know personally wouldn’t do this. But this is bigger than Sanders, it’s about the inherent violence in a Socialist society.

Violence as a source of control is part of the movement because people–such as myself–will never succumb to it any other way. If this is the path to establishing Socialism, what would the Socialist society of the United States be like? Pretty much like Venezuela or Brazil. A state of limited resources and a constant authority presence. A state where basic needs, like toilet paper, are as valuable as gold because of their scarcity. Where innovations are gone and prices are sky high.

And violence has truly become the “new normal,” not from an armed assailant but from a federalized police force. In other words, the violence that anarchists used to institute their beloved social order of collectivism is nothing compared to what is to come if they succeed in the agenda.

Fellow supporters of the cause dismiss such actions as their passion getting away from them. I’m so sick of hearing that! While such heinous acts do happen from the right, they are not common; from the left, they are part of the playbook, literally. Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals, not only didn’t shy away from violence but encourages it. Neither do Unions, another vessel of Socialism. Or race activists or feminists. Or environmental zealots. It’s difficult to find activist groups of the left that dont advocate or at least tolerate violence for the cause.

One could argue that such violence was used by the nation’s founders, that these attacks are valid now. The acts of violence back then was a response to violence already used against them by the representatives of the King. Rand Paul was mowing his front lawn while beaten. Does that sound like the same thing to you? Does the Senator seem the monarch that stripped his neighbor of his rights? Violence during a revolution is at times necessary but it only holds validation when in selfdefense, which far too often is lacking by Socialism’s advocates.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books about pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

“THE ENTIRE END CITIZENS UNITED team is heartbroken by the senseless loss of life in Las Vegas. To those grieving, please know that we are with you. Even in the face of such tragedy though, we must resolve to identify a new path forward. 

    At ECU, we believe our role in this fight is to call out the undue and devastating influence of the gun lobby in America . We all know the big money in politics corrupts our Democracy and nowhere is more clear than in the rejection of commonsense gun laws that could help our communities be safer.”

    That was a declaration made on October 2nd, 2017, shortly after the Las Vegas shooting by The End Citizens United campaign. This is common sentiment among those in favor of gun control. 

    The Progressive Turnout Project referred to not immediately advancing more strict gun laws as “ignoring the will of the people” and excoriated the Republican Party saying, “tragedy after tragedy, the GOP has done nothing absolutely NOTHING but offer ‘thoughts and prayers’ to victims of gun violence.” Joe Biden called out the Republican Party for their “inaction” after the shooting.  

    Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson had this to say:

   “It is an unspeakable act causing unspeakable pain. As we would expect in this great country, the stories of horror and death are accompanied by inspiring stories of Americans doing what Americans do: Strangers saving the lives of strangers. First responders going into harm’s way. Thousands lining up for hours to donate blood, and millions of dollars pouring into funds for victims and their families.

 But sadly and predictably, the partisans on each side have already retreated to their respective trenches. Some laying blame on gun rights activists, and some of my fellow supporters of the 2nd Amendment refusing to even engage in a conversation.”

 

I agree with that but it’s difficult to have a conversation with those who only offer demagoguery. It doesn’t sound like they want to engage in a conversation. The activist group Some Of US, at least has a point, commenting about the recent push to deregulate gun silencers.

 

 

“Silencers would prevent a gun from making a loud popping–making it harder for the average person or even law enforcement to know when and from where shots are being fired.”

 

 

 

 

 

I will give them credit for at least critical thinking but all the arguments against deregulating silencers are also valid ones in favor.

If a gun owner at the scene had a silencer on their firearm and choose to act and ended the shooter’s life, they would be more encouraged to do so. Say they took a shot and missed or only wounded the shooter, and another shot was necessary to end it. That anonymity, would be a comfort in such a situation. The shooter would only want anonymity so they could get away and cause more chaos, and there has not been a recorded account of a shooter using one. A shooter wants chaos and a loud gunshot would provide that, these are not snipers remember, and many don’t care about hiding.

The shooter having a silencer wouldn’t be as much of an asset as postulated anyways, the sounds of gun shots are not the best method for determining the location of the shooter. The visual clues, such as the blast from the muzzle or the trail from the bullet, are far more accurate. At best, it’s a pointless law but more than likely it’s causing more harm.

Many have been trying to determine the rationale for the violence. Was it because he lost big at the gaming tables? Was he slighted by a member of the hotel staff?

    The Las Vegas shooter scouted locations in Boston and Chicago as well, demonstrating a clear determination to kill multiple people and it didn’t really matter where. This was about ending as many lives as possible and making a name for himself, making him a clinical psychopath and making motivation a moot issue. Notoriety was all the motivation he needed. He also was planning more than the single incident–including a bombing similar to the Oklahoma City bombing–but wasn’t counting on the efficiency of Las Vegas Law Enforcement.

Many criticize the media in all this, to a degree they are correct. If the media didn’t over-cover these tragedies, it wouldn’t entice these glory-seekers of violence to commit such atrocities. On the other hand, such coverage probably saves lives too. Visitors and residents of Las Vegas knew to stay away from the area and they called loved ones in the city to make sure they were all right. Maybe limiting coverage wouldn’t be such a bad thought.

Tougher gun laws are the answer and can make things worse and the control freaks in Washington know this, they have the CDC study on gun violence which was later replicated by Harvard University, and both had the same results. The largest source of deaths by guns are suicides, then the criminals and last the victims.

They are also ignoring the FBI statistics on violent crime, violence is at an all time-low–even with the spikes during the Obama administration and this first year of the Trump administration. So, what is going on here?

If legislators have access to all this data, why proceed do a pathway of obsolete laws? Because they are control freaks and they want you dependent on government services. But consider that a lot can happen between the time you call 911 for law enforcement or the ambulance. If you have the chance to end a violent shooting, you should do so rather than running like a scared rabbit. Otherwise this predator will treat you like a scared rabbit! If you can assist someone else after an accident, you should, or their death is on you. What’s more you have the right to buy a gun and you shouldn’t have to ask permission.

We have to stop those with mental illness from getting guns though, is the most common response. Fine, I’ll discuss that, to start off we need to make sure that this is established as a case by case basis and strictly defined. According to many gun control advocates, even the desire for a gun is a mental illness. Sounds like they are unbiased and able to set realistic and fair laws in this issue. Mental illness is the problem but more strict laws on that demographic won’t do anything either, psychopaths and sociopaths generally are the most difficult to diagnose, they are exceptionally intelligent and easily manipulate others. Many doctors don’t even know they are being conned by them unless specifically trained to deal with them. Yet again, the laws would harm those who are innocent.

Gun control has been tried many times in the United States, in different scales. The earliest attempts were simply cities, many in the mining and cattle towns during the heavy romantized “Wild West” era. As the name implies, it wasn’t very successful, and the criminals ignored the laws. Same as they do today.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. HE has also written books about pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victims Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.