Letter to
All Americans About Gun Control from an Independent
Dissident
From Gary Ghost, an American male (no party or organization affiliation)
Dear Americans:
[Note: This essay is written by a true minority and was not written to please
any majority point of view. Some statements or attitudes herein may rile or
alienate readers to the point of wanting to reject before giving it an entire
hearing. However it may be worth reading in its entirety to understand the
overall message. If you feel this argument is vital and important feel free to
share, post, email, etc., especially your companions and people with clout such
as politicians, organizations, etc.]
Guns, as means of deadly force, are but one significant variable in this
complex and too often dangerous world of many political realities. Violence, in
general, which is really our core subject, as it is also the gun’s mission, has
had an exceedingly long human history—far surpassing the invention of gunpowder
or any particular weapon. This is to say violence, in all its possible forms,
will not go away any time soon. Nor is it limited to our human race such as
triggered by willfulness or passion. It is part of a natural order—far broader
than rage, calculation or moral assumption—rather intrinsic in the dynamics of
change—as hail, tornado, and lighting strike.
Guns are an effective form of human violence, which is why they are so often
employed in both war and crime. They are dangerous and deadly. Reasons for
their existence are not always, or even often, noble. They kill. This is to say
we human animals kill—and nowhere more so than for political reasons—such as a
nation venturing abroad for purported reasons to exact war against terrorists,
etc. (while not ironically understanding that war is terrorism). Plus
stockholding investors make lots of money from weapon manufacturing
companies—that sometimes sell to both sides of a conflict.
Fear is another reason why weapons exist. Fear dominates, or at least resonates
within, the very existence of humanity—especially in this “age of anxiety” with
its many unknowns and likely future forms of despair. And yet fear is not
necessarily bad, as some fears are rational, some rational only learned through
becoming aware, whereas others are irrational or misguided, and still some
others hard to categorize because of the unpredictability of factors involved.
Nevertheless both fear and violence are very human realities; and one thing
that we can be sure is that banning guns from the general populace will not rid
this 21st century of either human fear or violence.
We know violence is sometimes used for rational ends, such as calculated war,
calculated terror, and even criminal enterprise. It can be semi-rational as
means of game and gambit. Yet force and coercion exists in many forms, and yet
it is true when weapons are actually employed they are seldom interested in
negotiation (although they may be more so than some imagine). Guns, like all
deadly weapons, are about power—at least the projection of power. Thus guns
exist, as deadly as they are, within context of all other forms of political
and social power—including various forms of coercive law and political tyranny,
and types of public suasion, including those who scream for political
correctness and common sense, and all realm of the
humanly possible. [Yet we note common sense is not so common and the truly
political is seldom correct.]
Political control of one’s right to employ any form of force or power is always
within a large political and social context. For example, coercive control
happens when political forces legally destroy a person’s right to privacy,
liberty, or right of association (that is without potentially being spied on),
as when all manner of Constitutional laws are ignored as literally shattered by
actual bureaucratic practices. Changes likes these within our society, are also
forms of violence, of which this American nation is very much besieged. And unfortunately
the perpetrators are the very politicians who swore an oath to protect our
American Constitutional Rights. These many realities,
and more worthy of a new Declaration of Independence, perpetrated by corrupted
manner of government are especially bad omen for the majority of people of this
nation.
It is within this context, that we ask American parents, who want and expect to
raise their children in safe neighborhoods and schools, we all step back and
look at a larger picture of how Americans respect, or disrespect, much of the
rest of the world (as to what forms of real politics and business practices
actually play out), in international environments on the ground, and whether we
are being protective of foreigners’ safety. There is a mental health psychology
in every society between the balance of what a given society claims to respect
as sacred and what it actually respects as sacred—including habits of
rationalization toward people in general (here and abroad); and when there is
much hypocrisy within that balance, that society can suffer from side affects
of disrespect within even as it worries about blowback from without.
Perhaps it is time someone suggested it is unfortunate that parents, of all the
millions of millions of “willing-to-be” parents throughout the world, have
“not” philosophically found enough wisdom to realize giving birth to a life on
this planet is a very precarious enterprise (especially given humanity’s
nature, his history, and his enormous capacity for cultural and religious
delusion (such as his exceptionalism and divine
missions), as well as his propensity to create and believe propaganda, indulge
passions and prejudices like hatred, etc., including his historical propensity
to violence, and all manner of rationalization to justify such violence, ought
give any potential parent pause. Why have there been so few radicals asking why
do so many parents assume kids are going to be happy to even be born into this
world with all its crazy and serious issues? Perhaps it would be better if the
entire human race realized a very practical goal would be to “not” have
children in the first place and just let humans go extinct?
This question is not simply a tactic to change the topic from gun violence in
schools to the wisdom of parenting in general, because there is something to be
said about all manner of presumptions parents and people assume about any
society or the world. Why, for example, would a sane person want to be born
into a world that already has thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds that could
go off in a short time, not to mention all the other many megatons of
ammunition and weaponry the world now possesses? Or why would a sane person
want to be born into a world in which there is expectation of major conflicts
between various nations and civilizations over various limited but highly
regarded resources? Or why would a sane person want to be born into a world, in
which people are expected to be self-supporting and yet there are fewer and
fewer jobs that pay a salary allowing one to live semi-comfortably (especially
when more people are born versus engineers’ ability to robotize and mechanize
work)? Why would a sane person want to be born into a world there is ever any
kind of crime? Why would a sane person want to be born into a world in which
collectives of peoples are literally murdering their environment, etc.? (There
could be a far longer list of these kinds of questions.)
Instead children are born without their consent, and then are acculturated by
various forms of righteous and nationalist dogma, such as mans’ inevitable
right to life and dominion over everything else (by no less than some
God-figure). Meanwhile few dare suggest to be born
might be more a curse than a blessing—because one is taught (brainwashed) that
life is inevitably a sacred gift. And yet cultures can treat the world and all
objects (including humans as commodities) as if nothing is sacred (in any true
sense) despite all the lip service. Can it be sacred for the human race to
continue to procreate and use the world’s resources until there are limits to
what lifestyles will be possible—that is while we are deluded into thinking our
special form of religio-laissez-faire-capitalism for
the wealthy can never fail to deliver to all our consumer-presumption needs? Is
there not something violent about this kind of ignorance? Whereas writers on
the left continue to presume and act as if there will be always be enough
wealth production to guarantee every form of human rights (no matter how big
the human population and its insatiable appetites). While I am usually on the
left side of the continuum I now find more and more sellout by leftist of the
middle and I do not feel I can trust leftists anymore. In fact I would never
have imagined myself ever thinking of playing a McCarthyist
red-bait card—but it seems too many leftists are selling real American security
to a false utopia in which Americans are more vulnerable to a Police State
rather than doing the real difficult work of addressing the real corruption in
this society.
This is the beginning of “our” collective mental illness—an unquestioned
assumption for enterprising Homo sapiens to own a right to heaven on earth (at
least for the chosen and the wealthy—or even with our collapsing middle class
in which consumers use a full one quarter of the world’s material resources and
energy supply) as if people, at least here in the U.S., can continue to presume
an unending supply of food, housing, entertainment, with a strong currency, and
all manner of living in secure and beatific quarters?
Obviously a sane society should expect to have safe schools and neighborhoods.
But maybe part of the problem is not as much mentally deranged people
occasionally gaining access to guns—as some government-expansionists would have
it—that now begs reason to scrutinize all mental health records of every
American citizen (within all their inevitable subjectivity of opinion—which is
what medical opinion ultimately consists) which is part of their “unstated”
push for more gun control—that is more bureaucracy for classifying Americans by
DNA, mental health records related to political propensities within a police
state apparatchik).
But maybe we should look at the sanity of the Christian sheeple,
so willing to corral into their own confinement,
first? One of the outcomes of religion seems to be to condition people into
having an excess of trust for authority (from one savior or another).
Regarding the Newtown school shooting in Connecticut, one rational response to
controlling who has access to guns would be to create and enforce legislation
that makes gun owners more responsible for locking up their weapons in their
own homes so people who should not be playing with them don’t have access to
them. Perhaps Nancy Lanza should be held more
responsible for her son, who had some personality disorder, having access to
her guns?
Something seldom broached in the
But if most Americans actually understood the main message of Thomas Scheff’s books they would have to question American and
Israeli foreign policy because it seems we actually use tactics of humiliation
to increase violent blowback—that thus allows the military and intelligence
apparatus to beef up their budgets and power in order to deal with the violence
they seem to inspire.
Obviously there was something psychologically going on with Adam Lanza. Guns just don’t go killing people by themselves.
Perhaps he had some kind of humiliating experience with his mother or that
school. This could be important to know. And maybe cultures can be mentally ill
just like individuals can be? Yet of the hundreds of reports created on various
matters of national security—how many analyze the sanity of the people of
nations (or even presume to be able to do so if it were reasonably possible)?
Maybe one perpetrator is culture itself (even if it is part of this culture’s
assumption to blame the individual and ego)?
In our mass-media-driven culture there is always some kind of imminent fear
(that the masses, via the media, are allowed to relate). Mainstream media
constantly plays us a daily diet of crime, violence and sexual crime story, day
in and day out, giving their many viewers the impression that no one is every
safe, and that every stranger is potentially violent or some kind of offender.
This is part of how a society can break down into atomized selves with no sense
of person power. And since big cities likely have one murder a day to shove
onto TV viewers the many are constantly reminded of their supposed and
excessive vulnerability (even if less that one millionth of the population
behaves in egregious ways). As news companies feel they must focus more on
local news they also choose to focus on sensational crime—and because they know
it sells more advertising and gets more viewers. Yes the media is invested in
crime stories because people watch it (and it is something they can viscerally
understand). “If it bleeds it leads” is not just some journalist idiom.
With 350 million people in this nation, and instant communications, there will
always be horrendous crimes to keep people reminded about the extremist
criminal nature of humanity, to constantly reinforce the impression that one
cannot trust people, and that we need more and more prisons, guards, and longer
prison sentences, and that we should constantly opt for fewer freedoms for the
sake of security. The Police State and fascism starts with conditioning the
human mind, as fear is the terrorist’s tactic. Yes that is correct—the
mainstream media can drive fear frenzies to motivate people to want to change
the laws of this country to actually make them more and more repressive.
They can use deceptive forms of statistics, such as announcing: “…Every 20
seconds a woman is assaulted in the
Why are people in one of the world’s most violent countries, with the biggest
arsenal of weaponry and military weapon sales, and ownership of intimidating
quantities of weapons of mass destruction, and a long history of propping up
dictators and death squads around the world, constantly complaining about
“their” innocence and victimization within their own country, that is when
chaos breaks out occasionally on the home front, meanwhile have too little
activist concern about all manner of violence going on in other parts of the
world—including forms of mass murder? What realities do we need to be thinking
about as far as an individual’s right to the power of weapon versus government
behavior in this exceedingly complicated (and corrupt) world? And how can you
possibly escape thinking about one without thinking about the other?
It is naïve to think that the Unites States lives in a vacuum, that there is no
relationship between our foreign policy, our corporate culture, our
government’s actual behavioral practice (forget the rhetoric) and levels of
crime. It may not be a direct one to one relationship but it likely exist. To discuss guns is to talk about horrific war,
corruption, and all manner of potential repression (such as torture). Gun
control, rightly, is an extremely political subject. Many, many peoples have
been killed with guns, and other weapons of warfare, in “many” parts of the
world over the last centuries and decades.
And yet there is something “more” dangerous than weapons and that is politics
itself (that history reminds us over and over again). While there are new
expanding technological capacities, human nature stays much the same as ever
ready for moral depravity. Guns do “not” exist in a vacuum—they are artifacts
built for and by a corrupt species of creature. Those who believe in some kind
of socialist Utopia leveraged on an excess of trust are deceiving themselves,
such as by thinking common people will never need protection from their own
government.
Michael Moore was correct in his recent speech after Sandy Hook Elementary
School massacre, at Beacon Theatre in NYC, in which he basically agreed with
the NRA on the point “people” kill: not guns, but then offered his
modification: “…Americans kill … that is what we do…” referring to, for
example, to five ongoing U.S. wars, etc. If Michael Moore is a bleeding heart
liberal he still understands violence can happen because of the decisions made
on Wall Street that impoverish middle class and rural Americans (and urban
homeless). He knows violence comes in many forms that don’t sound loud or seem
bloody, but can be equally devastating in their effects on people, such as by
lost jobs and homes that sometimes also leads to suicide and other tragedies
and problems.
What we Americans need to asking ourselves (within the context of many
complicated realities) is, should we be banning dangerous weapons for the
common man while our too-often law-defying government stockpiles them along side mountains of ammunition? UPI did a story in March on
the Department of Homeland Security order for 450 million rounds of 40 caliber
bullets (hollow point—killers) from ATK Security and Sporting Group of
And yet this is only part of the story—there were actually 1.6 billion bullets
ordered with various companies (see “If Obama is
opposed to guns, why did his administration just purchase 1.6 billion rounds of
ammunition and sniper rounds?” at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/038407_ammunition_homeland_security_civil_war.html#ixzz2GCdb296f
Apparently some political elites of this corrupted
NY Representative Peter King claims he cannot understand why Americans
think they need assault weapons. Apparently he doesn’t realize his own
government is responsible for too much of the torture that has recently
occurred around the world? Apparently he is not aware that his own government
covered up many facts about 9/11 such as indications that the event has likely
different causes then the official explanation in which Americans were not only
told to connect the dots but were shown which dots they should be connecting?
(See 9/11: Who
Really Benefited?by Captain
What we The People “now” need is a thorough analysis of just how much the
federal government, especially by the DHS has increased its police state
apparatus within all our states, and local counties and cities, so we can begin
to understand this hegemonic Leviathan that has been silently amassing. This
includes not only everything that has actually happened because of the Patriot
Act (as limiting personal liberty and privacy); but all related legislative
acts like the National Defense Authorization Act and its Military Use of Force
Act assumptions (that allows for military control and lockup of people
suspected of aiding terrorism here within our nation); but also broadening of
FISA and NSA powers; and other disclosures like Dana Priest and William Arkin “Top Secret America” reporting series in Washington
Post back in the summer of 2010; or the more recent December 2012 report in the
Wall Street Journal about illicit spying by the National Counter-Terrorism
Centers. The amount of legal changes and illicit behavior by this government, that will not give up its assumed right to own force,
is staggering, and much under the pretext of opportunity when people are
willing to submit to more control as they feel terrorized.
This is why any banning of guns (or other Constitutional rights) here in the
Perhaps “you” trust the American government and various special interest forces
that basically run this country in one manner or another? Personally I do not
trust the American government, and many of our elective representatives, or
perennial career employees of some executive departments (who do not run for
office), to look out for the rights and liberties of citizens. If you
thoroughly study America’s foreign policy over the last decades, and if you are
honest and sincere in your research, you cannot possibly conclude the
Washington D.C. Establishment should be trusted in any major way—especially in
relationship to giving up your 2nd Amendment right to own guns (your only and
last defense against their possible tyranny).
No doubt, by far, most government employees are decent, law-abiding citizens
worthy of respect. But this does not counter the reality that some in strategic
positions of power are far more susceptible to politics, dishonesty and crime
than are the majority. These are the people we need to be concerned, such as
their planning for police responses to civil unrest for such possibilities as
economic collapse and other disrupting truths.
This government (and especially both major political parties and their lobby
cronies), if not thoroughly corrupt, is still too corrupt—including its
capacity to violate human rights. Banning weapons here today or in the near
future could be the equivalent of giving Mafia thugs your last weapons. It
could be paramount to suicide or worse, as lock up in concentration camps
whenever Martial Law is declared, or any move based on preventing riot, because
they actually have psychopaths employed in The Beltway (such as in influential
Neo-Con think-tanks, but not limited to influential policy centers, who would
gladly send your kids to war on false pretenses (as they have already done with
many American parents’ kids).
This is The Establishment’s blowback paranoia. For example they know military
personnel coming back from stints in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., that some now
know they were lied to, and so suspect some of these men and women are angry
and possibly dangerous. They don’t want revolution and justice served. This is
to say they don’t want some of the criminals at the top of the pecking order
hanged here the way Saddam Hussein was hanged. And this is equally why there
have been continuous attempts, via the U.S. Congress, to control more and more
Internet freedoms (old time Congress people know things).
Truths have been slowly infiltrating to the masses about the lies fed (lies
about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq from an axis-of-evil, that is the
Neo-Con/ Oil Industry/ Military Industrial Complex investor class conspirators)
but also important affiliates in the media like Judith Miller and David Sanger
of the New York Times (not to mention Rupert Murdock and his filth of twisted
ambition). Yes media’s lapdog involvement of going along with Neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith’s
Pentagon infiltration, establishing their own Office of Special Plans OSP to
plant “alternative Chalibi lies” as supposedly
alternative intelligence, is too big a story to summarize in one article (and
is already documented).
Suffice it to say, the Second Amendment, is not about sport hunting
(superficial red herring), not primarily about your right to defend yourself
from criminals (which is certainly a topic worthy of debate especially when
crazy shooters act as terrorists), but rather the more important reason that
every citizen has a right to own guns to protect themselves from corrupt forms
of tyrannical government (that is their employees as instigated Police State
Department who might engage various levels of harassment and oppression). This
is what our founding fathers understood—that all forms of government are
corruptible—and when they are so, are powerfully corrupt and violent.
No government ever—no matter how much naïve trust by blind patriotism
exist—should be trusted to the point citizens just hand over their right to
defend themselves from those in power. ALL forms of government are corruptible,
and so are ALL forms of institution, including the news media, and even
religions are corruptible—or at least their megaphones and personalities can be
used to deceive citizens into being too trusting as to hand even “more” power
over to the few who also control strategic resources.
Americans need a new Declaration of Independence. We need to make some
historical sense. We Americans cannot give these people, or their spokespeople,
or other wealthy and influential tyrants, the right to ban our guns, elect our
leaders, or make our laws. Currently there is a smear campaign going on to
destroy Chuck Hagel’s chance to become Secretary of
Defense because he has not been ass-kissing enough to right-wing Zionists who
think they should dictate our foreign policy. Many of our own elected officials
would rather treasonously betray Hagel’s
determination of putting American concerns before
Too many of our leaders are the least trustworthy people to listen or debate on
the matter of gun control (including senators like Diane Feinstein—a woman who
is clearly an insider within our corrupt foreign policy and who also has a
permit to carry a weapon). Her life and biography may be complex and worthy but
even her supposed attempt to kill the military’s right to detain Americans if
suspected of aiding terrorists amounted to little more than subordination to
the military authority (and of course her claimed rhetoric did not pass anyway
as more show than anything).
Senator Paul Wellstone (a left-wing Jewish American) was assassinated, via an
airplane crash, shortly before there was serious debate on whether the
Meanwhile U.S. Congress is creating “their” right to read our email (and all
our communication—as already ongoing). They can already know almost anything
they want about us. And yet we are supposed to trust these people who have
already violated our rights in many ways?
They have spent enormous amounts of tax revenue to engage in unnecessary and
unwise wars primarily designed to benefit certain industries and political
blocks (but not the majority of American people). Yet seldom do these
“violence” budget items for special operations and drone programs get any
hostility on the part of debates about a fiscal cliff?
Diane Feinstein, our latest savior (oh and since she is a woman she is somehow
less hawkish), is smack in the middle of our corrupted policies including
allowing telephone and Internet companies to spy on us. She is a significant
player in our current U.S. foreign policy that kills people every day, over and
over and over again (not to mention torturing people—and quite frankly many
people would rather be shot to die quickly than to be slowly tortured).
Therefore Feinstein is too much like a dumb Madeleine Albright saying in a 60
Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl when question about 500,000 Iraqi children
dead because of U.S. long-term sanctions on Iraq, whether she as then Secretary
of State thought it worth it, with her infamous “…it was a difficult decision
but we thought it was worth it (supposedly punishing Saddam Hussein—a man the
CIA previously helped put in power and supplied weapons when they were at war
with Iran). Albright was not stupid because of what she said but because of her
whole back-ass-ward way of thinking (as insider). Saddam Hussein only became
the devil after he kicked Western oil companies out of Iraq because they wanted
too much of the cut (before that while he was actually committing atrocities
the U.S. media and State Department was pretty much quiet). And what about the
depleted uranium that will be inflicting medical harm for many years? Or what
about the
So if we lived in a sane and reputable country of some modicum of nobility and
probity, radical gun control might be an important, front-burner issue—but we
don’t live in that kind of country. We live in a country of enormous disparity,
delusion, and greed. More importantly we live in a country in which we have few
intellectuals who we can trust (few who are cynical and sophisticated enough to
understand the abyss of long-tern potential of political repression that could
come to exist—especially without peoples’ right to any form of power). This
country too could evolve into a Stalinist camp that wreaks havoc on the masses
of people by fascist and militarist might (read the damn Soviet x-gulag
prisoner that wrote the book).
Jesse Ventura is right and the sooner the rest of our nation and his group of the special force figure this out the better we all
are.
Sincerely,
Gary Ghost