Re: Addiction to Firearm Regulation

(I posted a comment at David Hardy's Of Arms and the Law on his post "Addiction to firearm regulation" and have reposted it both his piece and my response here.)

Just had a thought, based on the previous entry. In my experience, most legislation follows one of two courses: (1) after enactment, it endures without much change for decades. Its advocates got what they wanted; from there on they bring test cases to interpret or enforce it. National Environmental Protection Act, Administrative Procedure Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act would be laws of this type that we handled at Interior. Alternately, (2) the law is tinkered with in minor ways. The Endangered Species Act falls into this class, with the tinkering generally being aimed at loosening it.

Firearm regulations are entirely different. No matter how much is enacted, its political proponents insist that they must have more. As I noted in the previous post, even New York and Massachusetts politicians want more, more. If the laws are failing, it just proves they must be made nationwide, not that something is wrong with the approach.

Given this, can we fairly speak of an addiction to firearms regulation? The behavioral pattern matches the most severe chemical addictions. There is no such thing as enough. Whatever is obtained soon ceases to satisfy. In chemical addiction, because the body compensates by creating more natural depressants or stimulants, in legislation, because crime continues or rises).

The concept of "enough" does not even exist. I think Dave Kopel once pointed out to me that no antigun organization has ever laid out a real platform -- "this is what we want, and if we get it, we'll be satisfied and stop there."

The only parallel I can think of is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has really won all that they sought (.08, no drinking under 21, stiff sanctions, severe punishment for repeat offenders), but keeps coming for more action. Even there, most of their recent push is for more enforcement and stiffer sanctions, wanting roving checkpoints and license plate seizures -- they don't seem to be pushing for lowering the level still farther, or raising the drinking age to 25, or things like that.

What could we regard as symptoms of a legislative addiction? I'd suggest:

1. No level of regulation is "enough."
2. That a problem continues despite regulation does not prompt an examination of whether the regulation itself is ineffective, but only the claim that it is insufficient. Logically, there will be situations where the legislation is potentially effective, but insufficient. The key here is that the proponents of it are incapable of examining it in this light: the thought that it is ineffective is literally inconceivable. Evidence to the contrary is simply ignored. They MUST HAVE MORE.
3. As a consequence of 1 and 2, the proponents lack a true platform. They have at best a time-bound agenda of what they think they might get in the near future.
4. If the addiction cannot be fed well, anything will suffice, even if it has no real impact ("cop-killer bullets," "assault weapons").
5. The addiction must be fed, even in the face of suggestions that it is harmful. The loss of both houses to the GOP, liberal support despite harm to other liberal objectives such as civil liberties, the tendency of opponents to counter-legislate with stiffer penalties and even the death penalty, etc. These consequences, which would meet with proponents' strong objections if they came about in isolation, are acceptable costs if the addiction can be fed.

[Guy Smith adds, in a comment stopped for some reason by the spam filter:
I'm not sure it is an "addiction", but more like self reinforcing diagnosis.Contrast gun control logic with "medicine" as practiced by barber doctors of medieval times. If you were ill and went to the barber, they would let some blood. The loss of blood made you feel woozy, so to cure this condition they would ... let some more blood. The resulting drop in blood pressure would make you nauseous and lethargic, so the learned barber would ... let some more blood.Repeat until the patient dies from "vile vapors" or some other contrived explanation.The modern scenario is one where the unintended consequence -- emboldened criminals, street level violence, hot home invasions -- bring calls for yet more gun control ... repeat until we look like the
U.K.]

(My response:)

An addiction? Certainly not a physical one, no, not like to heroin or nicotine. An emotional or psychological one, perhaps, but substantially different from an addiction to gambling or pornography -- although alluding to an addiction to the "pornography of gun control" or to "gambling on victimization" has potential.

I think the Anti's position reflects commitment to their ideology rather than an 'addiction' to legislation. Their commitment reflects blindness from the thick veneer of ideology to an agenda they dare not verbalize, because to state it would be to destroy any hope of achieving it. In this case they have gone down the slippery slope from perspective to bias to prejudice to bigotry.

Call it the guilt of wealth, the fear of responsibility or the safety of surrender, it all leads to authoritarian government where the promise of safety is more valuable than the price of freedom.

The question for all of us is how much will we lose before we are willing to give up everything we have left to fight for what we believe in? What do THEY have to lose before they embrace the rights of self-defense through the responsibilities of firearms? What do WE have to lose before we accept total disarmament?

Ultimately, the side that gets the opponent to accept those goals first becomes the winner. The path for our side to their goals is shortest, because we give up a little more every year. They want to be subjugated, therefore our victory instead depends on them being abandoned and preyed upon until they are reduced by attrition. We need to keep our guns while at the same time they become segregated.

This War is for Real!

(Quoted in its entirety.)

This WAR is for REAL!
Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United State is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001,
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush.1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see (http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm) )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world – German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way – their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing – by their own pronouncements – killing all of us “infidels.” I don’t blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage.

It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort towin.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort if we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose

I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United State, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women , or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that include the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

The Power of Hindsight: An Interactive Game!

A type of question I like to pose involves knowing the future, the benefit of hindsight and freedom of choice based on that in the present. The old example is if you knew Hitler would start WWII, what would you do in the 1930’s to stop him?

Today my question is what would you do NOW to stop a nuclear WW3 three, five or 10 years in the future? Assume that WW3 is nuclear, inevitable once certain conditions are reached and preventable by taking the right actions now.

Well, you’d first have to define the causes, the participants, the belligerents and propose the solutions. My fear, of course that we do know the first three and are now quibbling over the fourth. ‘Do Nothing’ seems to be a common suggestion, otherwise known as ‘Harass by Inspection’, or ‘Strengthen the Black Market Through Sanctions’.

The most commonly proposed solutions for WWII are not really in vogue now: 1) Assassinate Hitler and take your chances with Ernst Rohlm, Von Ribbentrop, Goebbels, and Goering; 2) End appeasement by not ceding the Sudetenland, and military resistance of the invasion of the Rhineland (because it came so late in the process, there wasn’t really a whole lot that could be done to prevent the Blitzkrieg of Poland).

In this case, assuming we still have enough time to stop WW3, who do we assassinate? Bin Laden? Pernicious beast he is. Not that we aren’t trying already, but we’d have to go into Waziristan in force for that option, and as far as WW3 goes, he’s “always relied on the kindness of others.” Ahmadinajad? Maybe, but he’s not the world dominating, charismatic dictator-type. Besides, there is probably someone with the same intent waiting in the wings who will step up and use the Iranian war machine the same way as Mad Tom. And more importantly, in the end, assassination doesn’t do anything to dismantle the nuclear production line and destroy Iran’s bomb-making capabilities. Power corrupts, and if there is a vacuum for the leadership of the next emerging nuclear power, any/some Joe will step up and make it happen so long as a path to nuclear hegemony is available.

You can’t have a nuclear war if the belligerents don’t have a nuclear bomb. So the game is either dismantle their ability to develop nuclear weapons, or remove their initiative for making the Bomb. Let’s pretend the former option is the last choice and address their initiative. Regime change is about it. The Iranian Theocracy has to go down, and it’s most likely that will take military action.

We can take it a step farther. Let’s assume we know who the players will be (were going to be?) and that there are three key players. Wouldn’t a prudent course of action be to take them out one at time so they don’t strengthen to the point where catastrophic war is required against all three at once? Attack one at a time by diplomacy to reform their initiative for war, or by force to destroy their ability to wage war as necessary.

Think about how much easier WWII would have been if Europe could have been solved in the 30’s and Japan in the 40’s. Both halves would still most likely have required war, but turning the Western World’s resources on one half of the Axis at time would also most likely have shortened the conflicts and resulted in less carnage.

So here we have the Axis of Evil consisting of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. As soon as we crushed Iraq, Iran and the NorKs saw the game clearly and realized how deep and abiding their friendships and alliances really were. Their best, and most likely only choice was to work together and use alliances with their sponsors to fight a delaying action until their nuclear capabilities were developed enough for hegemony.

I think Iran is next. The big question is whether or not we are in time to prevent a nuclear suicide attack by a state sponsor.