Historically
authoritarian governments hate gun ownership of private citizens. The
late Chinese leader Chairman Mao said that ‘political power comes
through the barrel of a gun’, and he was of course correct. That’s
why totalitarian governments hate guns and over the course of modern
history have sought to outlaw remove them from private control.
Democracy in the United States was
created under God by a populace that had ubiquitous ownership of guns
yet today Democrats would rather ban guns than safeguard schools and
other public places with competent security. Notably the former
Soviet Union had great security for the citizenry and could leave
many critical facilities lightly guarded-even those storing weapons
grade uranium and plutonium, because people were too afraid of the
KGB’s internal security forces to commit crimes. A totalitarian
state with a monopoly on guns is a status, evidently, acceptable to
today’s Democrat Party in the United States working supportively to
concentrate wealth and absolute power. I wonder if Russia has liberal
gun laws today, or if people are still banned from owning AR-15s or
AK-74/Ar-15 hybrid weapons?
Some have pointed out the reasonably
need of the government to stop the mentally incompetent from
possessing guns. People with actual physical cognitive damage so far
that they don’t know what they are doing with a gun that is
equivalent to driving a motor vehicle impaired under the influence of
alcohol should indeed have their weapons possession restricted in
order to prevent harm to themselves or others. Yet the exploitation
of mental health by government powers is another tool for
totalitarianism and the removal of political dissidence to
totalitarianism of the state. With modern MR perhaps the state should
need to provide physical evidence of relevant cognitive mental damage
in any individual it seeks to deny fundamental constitutional rights.
When the founders created the first
amendment there was no electronic broadcast media. It is probable
that they would never have created the first amendment as it is if
there was radio and in the absence of dueling. Back in the day, in
the early 19th
century, libel and slander laws could act as checks and balances to
the print media, besides the alternate legal remedy of calling out a
nefarious media wise guy to the legal field of dueling if all other
defenses against public abuse failed. Today those remedies are
largely obsolete in regard to the broadcast media and its raving and
psyop extremes for propaganda purposes. How few radio broadcasters
have been convicted or substantively punished for libel and slander,
stalking and harassment?
The broadcast media is a tool for the
ending of democracy. An NPR poll found that 75% of Democrats regard
curtailing or rolling back the 2nd
amendment as their number one political priority. In other word
Democrats are constitutional regressive and pro-corporatism, or at
least they told NPR what NPR wanted to hear.
The poor students shot as chickens in
a coup in Florida recently should have had better school defenses
such as fingerprint scanners for door entry and imaging to screen out
guns. The exploitation of slaughtering humans concentrated in unsafe,
undefended structures to advance the interests of national
authoritarianism under the power of the Supreme Court of Corruption
is not a reason for optimism.
