Absurdity A La Mode

READER NOTE: To see articles before they appear here, check out our new blogsite at Steemit!

This article is dedicated to the useful idiots converging on WashingtonDC, Saturday, March 24, 2018, for the March For Our Lives silliness.

It appears that the so-called #AustinBomber #Texas has taken himself out as local SWAT teams closed in on him while he sat in his car. We are told that the 24-year-old white male randomly killed a handful of people for no obvious reason - as of yet. He was found using surveillance video and Google search data. [STORY LINK]

The subtle message is that having surveillance cameras bristling across our daily lives and online tracking of everything we do is a good thing, since it helped catch this nutjob. Hard to argue against that, except that violating the rights and privacy of billions of people worldwide hardly seems a fair trade for the ability to catch one lunatic. But that's a different rant.

What I really want to draw your attention to is the complete and utter silence from the halls of power and the nattering nabobs of the corporate Geezer Media.

No slavering calls for "common sense bomb-control".
No rush to draft bans on "assault bombs".
No impassioned calls for "bomb-free zones".
No grand-standing political ninnies hollering to ban "high-capacity bomb parts".
No emotional pleas for "bomb registration".
No whining over "access to bombs".
No hand-wringing over "bomb shows".
No wild-eyed demands to end "private sale of bombs".
No "town hall meetings" with scripted questions.
No student demonstrations against "bomb violence".
No wailing and gnashing of teeth over "our bomb culture".

Not a word. Nothing. Not even the standard focus on the means of killing rather than the killer. The media is quiet. The politicians are quiet. The SJWs are silent. Progressives are silent. Hell, even Hillary Clinton has said nothing about this matter, and she can usually be found at the center of any convenient tragedy.

This may seem like argumentum ad absurdum, but it's not. Rather this incident shines a very bright spotlight on the hypocrisy and opportunism routinely practiced by Geezer Media and the Plutocrats (which would be a fantastic name for a band, by the way).

The only mass killings ever hammered on in the public sphere are with guns. Guns are also the only objects vilified for these killings. No one ever blames knives, cars, bombs, garrotes, ice picks, or other weapons for the killings, only guns have the apparent ability to kill by themselves.

In the current scandal over the poisoning of a spy in the UK, no one is blaming the poison. All the focus is on blaming Russia, even Vladimir Putin himself. Everyone knows poison doesn't kill unless someone administers it to the victim.

So why are guns always blamed for killings? Why do the Gatekeepers always focus on these particular tools, rather than the perpetrators? Why so much animosity towards guns, when nearly every object can be weaponized?

The answer is quite simple: guns equalize the power equation between government and the masses. Bombs have to be delivered. Knives are for close combat. Bows and arrows have a fair range, but they are bulky and require a great amount of skill. Guns, however, can be used at great distances, and even cheap ones have as much potential as the outrageously expensive military versions.

It's very hard to control large groups of people who have the power to shoot back.

Larry McDonald famously noted that there were four boxes of liberty: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box, to be used in that order. This insightful phase posits that guns underpin the defense of individual liberty.

Indeed, it is often said that the First Amendment to the US Constitution (rights of speech, religion, press, assembly) are backed up by the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms).

It would seem that the constant harping on guns by the Controllerati backs up the assertion that totalitarian governments fear armed masses more than anything else. That no other weapon used in mass killings receives even a fraction of the attention given to guns would also seem to support this conclusion.

Whatever the motivations behind the shrieking outcries over guns, it is quite clear that bombs are not on the same list.

The young man accused of the Austin bombings clearly had access to the materials, the knowledge and the opportunity to build and deliver deadly devices. As far as we've been told, the victims were randomly selected. He had the ability to take his devices to other cities for delivery, and even died in his car, reportedly from self-inflicted detonation.

The point is that for those motivated to kill, there is always a way and it is impossible to regulate or limit all of them. Banning or controlling guns will achieve nothing. No one will ever be safe from individuals determined to cause havoc. It is a fact of life embedded in civilization itself.

When it comes to murder, there are a thousand motives and even more means. The maniacal and hysterical focus on just one tool reveals an agenda, which is further reinforced by the silence surrounding other tools. It's high time we publicly acknowledge that the problem is people, not tools, and more importantly that the concept of "safety" is a dangerous illusion used to manipulate public opinion.

Guns, Guts And Glory

Gun-Control Victims - Poland

"God created Men and Sam Colt made them equal!"

Being a seventh-generation Texan, I have spent my entire life with guns.  I started shooting at around 4 years old, got my first .22 rifle for Christmas when I was 8, and at one point I owned more than a dozen guns of all different types and calibers.  At no point in my life have I ever pointed a gun at a human being, and only once did I expose a side arm to diffuse a potentially nasty situation.

I was a member of the National Rifle Association from almost the time I could walk, much less hold a gun.  I was a competition shooter rated as Marksman at 100 feet for .22.  Thursday was Skeet Club at my high school, and on those days there were more guns and ammo in my school than in a battalion of some armies.  At one point, I even had a callous on my right shoulder and permanent specks of gunpowder in the skin of my trigger finger from shooting guns.

Growing up on the farm, it was the norm to see 12-year-old boys driving pickup trucks around the area with an entire arsenal in the front seat and gun rack just to plink beer cans down by the creek on Saturday afternoon.

When I say arsenal, I mean everything from .410 snake guns to 30-30 shoulder cannons and .45 semi-auto handguns, not to mention hunting bows, throwing knives and various other goodies.  We all knew safe handling like we knew breathing.  There was never horseplay with guns.  That was a serious offence, even among kids.

I never knew anyone that was injured by a gun, other than two relatives that ate their own bullets for whatever reasons they had to do that.

There wasn't much crime, either.  No one in their right mind would try to rob a bank or store when just about everyone else in the store was packing heat.  Occasionally, the news had stories of shoot-outs over in the bad side of town between a bunch of drunk rowdies, or maybe the rare fugitive holed up against the cops.

In the aftermath of events like Las Vegas, the whiners all come out in force saying guns need to be banned.  Well, folks, opioids killed 64,000 Americans in 2016, while gun homocides were about 12,000 (the actual number is almost impossible to find). 

Just for comparison, automobile accidents killed 35,000 people in the US.  Both cars and opioids are licensed, controlled and sanctioned by the US governments at all levels.  For a bit more perspective, cigarettes killed around 480,000 people last year, and tobacco is also licensed, controlled and sanctioned by the government in the US.

In fact, lightning strikes about 260,000 people, and kills roughly 24,000, per year annually, which means you are FAR more likely to be hit by lightning at any given point on the planet, than killed by a gun in the US - approximately the same odds as winning the lottery.

While events like Las Vegas are indeed very tragic, politicians and media calously use them to advance agendas that have nothing to do with our safety.

You see, America was founded by folks who clearly understood that government itself was the most dangerous force ever unleashed by humanity on itself.  They knew that the only way for humans to protect themselves from the vile force and power of government was to equal the playing field by guaranteeing that the populace would, in the aggregate, constitute an army that no government could ever conquer.  They ensured that the rights of religion, speech, assembly, and the press would be backed up by the right of the people to destroy by whatever means necessary any force that tried to take them away.

That is the true, if often unacknowledged, purpose of the US Second Amendment.  The right to own guns was not for hunting or self-defense (though they are valuable benefits), it is for the express purpose of eliminating a tyrannical government.

And that is why the government keeps trying to take away guns, whether by vile abuse of tragedies, or by creating tragedies to try and stampede the majority into giving up guns.  Put simply, no government can have absolute power as long as the people under that government have the power to fight back, and with 90 admitted guns per 100 people in the US, that's a mighty force for a tyrant to overcome.

Ask the victims of Hitler, Stalin, Ho Xi Minh, or any of the other tyrants of just the last century if they agree with gun control.  I'm willing to bet almost all of them would gladly have accepted a gun to even the fight just a bit.

To my mind, the only agreeable situation that might encourage me to give up guns would be for all the governments of the world to disarm first.  Even then, I'd be hard-pressed to let go.  With well over 100 million people dead at the direct hands of governments in the past 100 years, it makes good sense for all people everywhere to keep and bear arms.

Bumbledicks, Pizza And Congresscritters

As usual, the Bumbledick GeezerMedia has set out to blame guns for the shooting of two cops, a congresscritter and two other people who aren't getting any attention.

So let's get this straight...the Bumbledick (Democrats) GeezerMedia (print, broadcast) has been on a year-long campaign to radicalize the Know-Nothing Bumbledicks in America, including calling for and actually dramatizing violence against the Bucketheads (Republicans).  When they finally trigger someone to pick up a gun and shoot, they get all bent out of shape on the availability of guns.  Do I have that right?

Both the shooter and the complicit GeezerMedia have shown a major flaw in their reasoning, if one can apply that term here.  They believe that guns are the reason for violence, not one of many tools for it.

This is obvious in the results of the shooting.  The shooter got off well over 50 rounds.  I watched the video several times and counted the pops before the cops arrived.  In this literal hail of bullets, the shooter only managed to injure five people.  So much for one shot-one kill.  The Big Prize was shooting a Congressional Leader type in the hip.

What this tells me is that the Bumbledicks honestly think that just waving a gun around and pulling the trigger kills people.  It's the gun's fault right?  If that were the case, there'd be a whole lot of dead people at the end of the shooting - 30 would be an acceptable ratio with that many shots.

Guns don't kill people.  Trained shooters with properly functioning tools who control their breathing and heart rates and take careful aim at kill points (head, chest) kill people.  The shooter in the park clearly knew nothing about guns and believed the Bumbledick hysteria that the guns did all the work.  All he had to do was carry it and pull the trigger and the guns and bullets would magically do the rest.

Another thing that was obvious in the video of the scene was that I get nearly every one of the cowering bystanders wished they had a gun at that moment.  It took cops a full 10 minutes to drop their coffee and donuts and get to the scene.  Surely, the congresscritter with the gushing hip wound dragging himself away from the shooter dearly wished he was armed.

The thing that struck me, though, was the pattern here.  Lone nut takes gun, goes on rampage, gets killed so he can't testify in open court.  At least since the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, this has been a pattern in US politics.  John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, John Hinckley (&c ad nauseam) have all been completely isolated from all other interests and contacts, acting completely on their own, with no further conspiracy involved.

Yet, the congresscritter who was shot - Steve Scalise - was supporting a bill called the "Frederick Douglas" bill, that directly attacked trafficking of children for sex - i.e., PizzaGate.

Ah, remember PizzaGate?  That's the scandal that almost broke based on comments in John Podesta's Clinton email that were veiled references to child sex.  Seth Rich was offed for releasing those email, the federal investigation got quickly buried, and the Frederick Douglas bill is being trounced, even to the point of killing (or trying to) congresscritters.

As with all conspiracies at this level, there are multiple layers upon layers.  As Jack Ruby said about the JFK assassination, the rabbit hole was deep and dangerous and no one wanted to go there.  Same with PizzaGate.

Blackmail is the oldest game in politics.  Compromise a public figure and you own them for life.  They get their most animalistic desires fed on a regular basis, and you get control of governments without your face being all over the media.  The word blackmail dates to the 1500s in Scotland, but the practice is far older than that.

Child sex trafficking is one of the most effective and widely used forms of control across the globe today.  Even the hint of it can bring down kings and presidents, and that is the idea.  Organizations like Child Protective Services "disappear" children into a slimy underworld where they are traded for access and control by the real leaders of the world - names you and I will likely never know.  If you don't play by their rules, you get the Anthony Weiner treatment.  If you try to stop it, you get the Steve Scalise treatment.

To hide the tracks of the conspiracy, a left-wing Bumbledick was activated and steered to the appropriate target by...whomever.  It was important to shut down his support (as Majority Whip) of the Frederick Douglas bill.  Only problem with the plan is that Bumbledicks are notorious afraid of guns and have been told for decades that the guns kill, not the shooters.

Fortunately, the plan failed miserably, though if I were Scalise's family, I would have someone watching every move by the hospital staff.  Amazing how survivable wounds can suddenly kill someone.  Just ask Seth Rich.

In the end, the Virginia shooting is another one of those many-layered conspiracies that can easily be spun in a hundred different directions to cover the tracks of the real perpetrators.  Gun control, crazy Bumbledicks and other stories are perfect examples of the effort to hide the PizzaGate tracks.  Hopefully, none of us Rubes will notice the connections.

There is another, equally deep level to this story, and that is the control the GeezerMedia still has over the minds of so many people.  The constant barrage of images showing politicians getting killed (Public Theater's Julius Caesar and Kathy Griffin's antics to whit) is having an effect on the masses, whether we acknowledge it or not.  But that's a story I have covered incessantly for years.

Do yourself a favor - turn off and unplug the TeeVee.

So Close And Yet So Far

Had the pleasure of an evening with a colleague of mine from Australia the other night.  We sopped up some margaritas and TexMex while trading war stories from the world of theater.  It was a congenial evening with a few good laughs at some of the head-slappers we've both witnessed in our industry over the decades, as well as a few horror stories.

All was well until the last half-hour when the topic turned to guns.

I had made the assertion that Texas and Ozzie cultures were very similar in many respects.  We both had strongly independent streaks, with cowboys and what might be interpreted as a kind of Old West period down under.  And this brought us to guns, where our views parted ways dramatically.

He was staunchly anti-gun, pointing out that the world sees America as rather crazy, what with all the mass shootings and such, not to mention the high murder and suicide rates where guns were involved.  The only solution, he posited, was a complete ban on all guns everywhere.  That would eliminate the use of guns in such a cavalier way to commit so many crimes.

Well, for someone like me, that was throwing gasoline on the fire.  I have been shooting since I could hold a gun, have been trained extensively, competed in range contests (with some success), and have fired just about everything from .22 to .50 caliber firearms.  On top of that, I come from a long line of Texans (pre-dating Texas independence) who firmly believed that only slaves are disarmed by "authorities."

First of all, when it comes to murder, history is replete with examples that go far beyond the introduction of gun powder, much less firearms.  In fact, a recent article out of the UK shows that gun bans there have only led to an increase in stabbings.  I also pointed out that nearly all mass shootings (at least in the US) occur in "gun-free zones."  Makes sense - if someone was hell-bent on mass murder, they'd naturally attack somewhere that ensured a large body count before they were taken down or shot by "authorities."

I made the point that if a gunman entered a place and started to open fire, I would much rather be in a room full of gun-carriers than not.  "Ah, but in that situation, most folks don't have time to react and so it wouldn't make much difference," he pointed out.  "It's called the 'normalcy bias,' and you're right, " I agreed, "However, just three trained carriers in the room at the instant the gunman opened fire would go a long way to minimizing loss of life, than waiting for 'authorities' to finish their coffee and donuts and cruise over to the scene."

I speculated that events such as the Batman movie murders, Sandy Hook (which may be a hoax) and Columbine might have had radically different outcomes had there been armed citizens on hand to react quickly.

In any event, I believe the odds are much more favorable if I have the same or better weapon in my hand than any potential attackers.

In the second case, my associate had brought up suicides.  "So many suicides would be prevented if they didn't have guns," he stated.  "How do you figure that?" I inquired.

"Suicide with a gun is a snap decision, and if they didn't have one, they might reconsider," he said.  I disagreed.

I have had three people close to me commit suicide: one with pills, one by hanging and one with a gun.  Obviously, not having guns would not have affected the outcome of 2/3s of those events.  In addition, I have reason to believe that having a gun in the third case probably would have delayed the outcome, but would not have prevented it.  From what I know of suicides, those that are prevented are usually in cases where they just needed attention, not where they were intent on the final act.  People who attempt suicide where they are found and stopped usually wanted to be found, and so chose a slow or obvious means to their end.  Those who have decided to end things will always wait until they are alone and there is little chance of being found, no matter what method they have chosen.

To posit that taking away one means out of hundreds available will prevent mass murders and suicides is nonsensical to my way of thinking.  A good archer can take out as many targets in roughly the same amount of time as someone randomly shooting a gun.  There is also chemicals, germs, radiation, knives, and even piano wire.

As I pointed out to my companion, an index finger on a properly trained attacker can be just as deadly as any other weapon, and much less likely to draw attention until significant damage had been done.

Finally, I firmly believe that any populace that is disarmed is a slave to whomever is set over them as "authorities."  If history teaches us anything, it is that governments and religions are the most dangerous and deadly forces known to Mankind.  In the 20th century alone, well over 100 million people died at the hands of ideologies (politics or religion).  In the early parts of the 21st century, the clash of Yahwisms continues to kill people in great numbers.  The only conceivable defense against these types of attackers is a population that is as well or better armed than the "authorities."

I suppose this is truly the point of contention between my associate and me.  Texas history is populated by fiercely independent characters who rejected several entrenched "authorities," Mexico and the British Crown, for two.  Further, living in a sparsely populated and wild land, where getting backup of any kind was highly unlikely, lends itself to self-reliance.  Having a gun equalizes the odds against many forms of mortal threats, whether imposed or natural.

On the other hand, Australian culture began in a penal colony and remains subject to the British Crown.  To my way of thinking, this creates an historical precedence for the individual to be subjugated to "authority."  I will likely be showered with hate-mail from Ozzie readers, but I think a philosophical case can be made for such a theory.

In any event, had the Vietnamese population been armed and trained, would the killing fields have happened?  If the Russian people had been armed and trained, would Stalin's atrocities have occurred?  If the good people of Timor L'este had been armed and trained, would the slaughter of 200,000 people turned out quite differently under Soekarno?  And if the Swiss had not been armed and trained, would that country have had 500 years of peace and neutrality?

A lot of hypotheticals, but in every instance, guns (or lack thereof) seemed to have made a difference in the outcomes.

My sister is rabidly anti-gun, yet she is more than willing to call on armed "authorities" when threatened.  I would much rather depend on my own guns and skills, than to call the coffee-and-donut goons and then cower while I wait for them to arrive to save me.  To my mind, their jobs are more to mop up and fill out paperwork, than to protect me.

Harvard University apparently agrees with me.