On the night of October 1, a lone gunman murdered dozens of civilians and injured hundreds more in the streets of Las Vegas. Early evidence suggests gambling debts were to blame, though the shooter killed himself before anyone could ask him his motives.
Very recently did I compose an essay on the vulgar display of those persons claiming to be anti-war while also feverishly insisting on the validation of private gun ownership rights. Which drives me nuts now, seeing the online commentary and mainstream news coverage alike going on about how the travesty of the mass-killings in Las Vegas could just never have been avoided. If one is in favor of guns, then they are absolutely not anti-war. They are not truthfully even opposed to the Military Industrial Complex, but rather to the contrary are admitting the effectiveness of gun lobbyist marketing and promotions, how such sales pitches have seeped so nonchalantly into the collective unconscious.
What is militarization, but the production, distribution and procurement of weapons of war, one and all essentially tools for enslavement, means for the lesser in controlling the greater? How can so many be so oblivious to how such a thing does not merely apply to the military of empires, but domestically as well, from police forces to concerned citizens? And how can so many be so eager to believe that the potential for killing and enslaving people is not only a right, but one that carries more weight than the truer right to not be killed or enslaved by anybody? To not have the wills of others interjected over one’s own? Exactly how is a private citizen possessing multiple firearms ideologically different from any army of the world? Within their own mind, does claiming the technical capacity for destruction as a means to peace and safeguarding sovereignty really propose anything remotely different than scale?
This generally unvoiced but widely-maintained idea that it would somehow magically be more difficult to influence and manipulate militias than armed forces of the state is alone ridiculous. Generals and federal officials always demand a hefty price-tag, whereas gun collectors can easily be found throwing beer cans at their man-cave walls over the ranty words of a right-winger podcast. At its core I believe it vindicates my claim that Libertarians are ultimately just conservatives who are ashamed to confess to conservative ideals publicly, no matter how much 11th-hour meaning they attempt to instill into the concept of Libertarianism. We see this directly in how alt-right and far-right groups lack the self-awareness to notice that right-wing politics are establishment politics today. Everybody moved to the right over the last several years except for the leftists, so that while the alt-right and far-right are openly normalized, the very existence of any alt-left or far-left is wholly fabricated. The basic left itself has been demonized.
As for the true, original meaning of leftism, it is essentially about helping others before helping oneself, putting the needs and desires of others first. On the other hand, the true, original meaning for rightism is essentially asserting the opposite, even to the extent that “certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable”. The people who faithfully elect leaders insistent that such nations as Iran, Syria and North Korea disarm themselves almost always are the same people who fundamentally refuse to stray from whatever ideals they read into the second amendment of the US constitution and see their own munitions ever cast aside. Nationalists and patriots of the US love the jingoism of “…liberty and justice for all” despite the blatancy of in practice such words only applying to those exactly like themselves. Villains categorically rationalize themselves, their ideas and their conduct. This is the myth underlying all purported US foreign policy. Sharing in a society where one must defend oneself from others wielding arms is by no means justice or liberty, which means we experience the same drama played out locally, too.
Much more can be gathered from where anarchy and free speech intersect in this excellent essay elsewhere. Conflating protestors with oppressors or suppressors is really popular right now, made all the weirder as those actually protesting the players and their game-pieces of the Military Industrial Complex have not the means to oppress or suppress anybody. Selling weapons is the largest grossing industry on the planet.
Detractors to native disarmament are quick to presume that such authority could only come from the federal government, which of course doesn’t warrant a tenth of the authority it already holds. Granted if we need a government at all, which of course is not my preference but for the sake of argument, then the purpose it serves is largely in regulations, managing resources and leveling playing fields. Without regulation corporations are free to use cheaper, less effective supplies in their products even should it kill the consumer. In application at an individual level, it can theoretically ensure that none might be enslaved or killed by others. Partisanship illusion aside, governments of any ideologue tend to end with their military enforcing the will of its ruling class of elite. The US military keeps more military bases around the globe than all the other military bases of all the other nations combined and multiplied tenfold. Domestically the Fraternal Order of Police is unabashed, even prideful of its own origins, that police groups in the US north were begat initially to collect taxes for property-owners, and police groups in the US south were originally begat to reprimand slaves. Thus, police groups today ultimately serve the same design, which comprises the same designs of every historical authoritarian. Instead of leaving decisions to any variety of authoritarian, decisions instead should be made by the individuals, particularly when it comes to creating the world they wish to be a part of.
The popularity of the notion that any gun has ever saved any life anywhere is a testament to how solidified is the food chain of the Military Industrial Complex, compelling so many people to earnestly believe that might makes right, and that those with lesser weaponry or no weapons whatsoever are the real threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as there are those wishing to have their wills forced upon others, then tools existing for no other purpose will service no other purpose. But the thing about disarming however, is that it does not need to come dictated from any government. Any democratic government, either legitimate or just in terms of publicity, consists of the people anyway, so why not step over the middlemen? Disarming should be not a legal imperative, but rather a moral one. I myself would go as far as Kant and say categorical. It is the responsibility of all those participating in society, whether contributing to society or sharing in the benefits of society, to disarm everyone. Just as it is the responsibility of all those participating in society to not lie, cheat or steal from anyone. There is virtually no need for government or any other collective to do what we can do ourselves for those around us.
Right-wing pundit Bill O’Reilly, in response to the mass-shootings of Las Vegas, asserts that mass-slaughter is a necessary price for freedom. Obviously noted as a thoroughly negligible opinion. The supposed right to potentially kill others being of greater importance than the right for nobody to ever be killed by anyone under any circumstances, is complete and total sociopathic nonsense. Nobody of sound mind would suggest that a prevention of school bullies would be to transform all students into bullies, or that if everybody had an STD then nobody might then catch an STD. In reality, as I myself wrote aways back,
If we cannot ban guns because supposedly bad people would still get them, then we cannot ban abortions because supposedly bad people would still get them. The idea of making abortions illegal is to save lives by limiting access to abortions though. So why would this not also apply to making guns illegal, even for police? If outlawing guns might save just one life, would it not be worth trying? If every life is precious, then no pro-lifer should reasonably have any issue with banning guns. Most gun owners do not own guns in hopes of saving lives, but because they wish to take lives, through the “sport” of hunting or the delusion of ever living out a John Rambo fantasy.
Political partisanship is religious zealotry is brand loyalty. These things are the establishment. But we do not require governments to know order from chaos, religion to know right from wrong, or products to feel whole. Particularly products designed to physically recreate the very emptiness that existed before their victims were even born. What if We The People, having reached the fucking end of our respective rope, have had quite enough?
Domestic gun sales are a distinct part of the Military Industrial Complex. Private gun owners do not obtain their wares through altruistic “mom and pop” manufacturers concerned exclusively with the safety of others. The need is fabricated as with any flavor of consumerism: You Must Have This Product. But where does this pathological marketing originate? Who insists that guns could or should protect anything at all? Politicians receiving hearty contributions and endorsements from arms contractors, the NRA and related lobbyist groups? From fear-mongering news stories broadcast on the plethora of corporate media platforms which purportedly knowledgeable “god and country” types just know cannot be trusted on any other matter? Many Libertarians in particular claim they want their guns to protect against the government, but how much more totalitarian must the government become before real action is taken? By their standards, considering the massive numbers of gun owners both legal and illegal in the US, are we to presume that all the faults and sins of our leaders in Washington thus far are kosher, for so few to have spent shells on anything other than powerless minorities, inanimate road signs and defenseless animals? How is what the Libertarians of the US ultimately want not the Confederacy?
Most disconcerting is how none of these gun owners seems capable of one lick of self-reflection, even enough to understand that not only do the same forces profit from all proliferation, but that they are aiding and worshiping these forces so valorously. Defending the methodology of the warmongers is by no definition opposition to warfare. It’s raping children to save the children from rapists. It’s selling heroin to save the population from drug addiction. It’s asserting your independence by brandishing the flag of your oppressors yourself. It is complete and total madness.