the gun control spectacle and beyond

All over the internet, liberals are once again responding to the cue of “really getting serious” about gun control which amounts to nothing more than scolding people on the idea of ever touching a gun because this naturally leads to what is known as “gun violence”. Guns don’t kill people, people don’t kill people, but ideas can if they possess a gun owner because they own a gun which produces “gun violence”. This psyop is similar to what the msm robots are repeating about ISIS now being an “out of control” ideology springing from vague conditions and structures — Amy Goodman and company’s neat package named “blowback” comes to mind — and the careerist left catering to the petty bourgeoisie follows suit and scolds the working class on what they now have to “live with”:

What social forces are going to achieve any of these? It might be added, moreover, that whatever the aetiology of the Daesh pathology, it now has a life of its own. It has insinuated itself into too many struggles, too many lines of antagonism, and too many imaginaries — national, local and global. There is no guarantee that even if every one of the above demands were realised, the fire wouldn’t continue to rage for many years.

My comrade wisely pointed out that the constant changing of the name or acronym for NATO’s groups of proxies murdering, raping, and pillaging is a psyop itself that impresses upon the public that they have a common enemy with the fascist state and that they are taking up a fight with ISIS, ISIL, IS, Daesh, al-Nusra, or al-Qaeda by tracking this phenomenon and cheering in the right direction. Again this parallels the gun control phantom. We have our enemy — gun violence and well whoever shoots them. What goes unnoticed is that gun control exists, and they are systematically, socially, and culturally kept out of the hands of those who are more marginalized in society already.

Screen Shot 2015-12-05 at 8.21.51 PM

The trick here is that the source for this intimates that those who do not possess them at the same rate as their counterparts are more “peaceful”, leaving out completely their chance for being killed by a gun — presumably not by the fascist goon squads known as “police”, because these larger forces rarely enter into the sunshiny mind of the liberal who has been conditioned to golly gee, just want the best for everyone.

The favored left liberal argument online for stricter gun control legislation is that this time, “we” are really going to get those guys, those wild white lone gunmen out there committing all the crimes. There is so much wrong with this oft repeated statement it’s hard to know where to begin. Facts I never see raised in these hand-wringing pleas are what the legislation they want looks like or what constitutes violations presently. In order to assess a possibility of the former by examining the latter, here the US Sentencing Commission summarizes as follows:

The offense level under this guideline is determined principally by the type of firearm in question, the defendant’s prior convictions for violent felonies or drug-related felonies, and the defendant’s status as a person prohibited by law from possessing firearms (e.g., a convicted felon or an illegal alien), in addition to other offense and offender characteristics, as discussed below.

So we have what amounts to a sliding scale with the decision at the point of contact left up to those who are permitted to carry guns by virtue of their obsequiousness to the fascist state!

Considering that left liberals will at least entertain notions of structures and society, the racial disparity at work in firearms offense convictions as things stand has not been altered despite their now decades of simply naming lone white men as the most egregious offenders, as if this magically brings into existence what they expect of their guy Obama who is always being constrained anyway.

Though Obama supporters may claim that there is still much work to be done under his various proposals (if these are even brought up outside of the graphics about the “epidemic” and repetition of “we have a problem”!) their insistence is actually furthering the gun control plan that is in place and functioning robustly. There are some interesting highlights from this summary, even, that work in tandem with states granting greater access to guns for certain populations (as evidenced above) and the prevalence of mass shootings that have occurred under Obama’s regime.

  • Provides states with monetary incentives—$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014—to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.

Since “our” government works for its citizens, surely such a restriction couldn’t be politically useful to militarize those who “play by the rules”, right? I’m guessing you know the answer to that. Last year, the controversial governor of Georgia signed an “expansive new pro-gun law” that doesn’t really stray from what Obama outlines:

In signing the package, Deal described it a little differently: The law, which goes into effect this July, protects the basic constitutional rights of the roughly 5 percent of Georgia residents who hold licenses to carry weapons, he said.

“This law gives added protections to those who have played by the rules – and who can protect themselves and others from those who don’t play by the rules,” he said in a statement announcing the bill’s signing. The bill passed both the House and Senate with sizable leads in mid-March. In each chamber, about twice as many legislators voted for the bill than against it.

Though one might think there would be more uproar from the concerned liberal citizens over Texas governor Greg Abbott’s recent signing of gun bills that includes open carry allowances, there was “little drama over whether Abbott would OK the session’s high-profile gun bills” and certainly I did not see these seemingly controversial decisions plastered all over social networking just this last summer. Considering the recent furor and threats made to university campuses (the universities of North Carolina and Chicago in particular) just this last week, this would seem like something to point toward. In any case, the boisterous “pro-gun” claims are still tempered by the importance of licensure that again dovetail with the extent of what Obama’s proposals set out to accomplish.

Two gun bills have already been voted out of a Senate committee to the full chamber.

One – campus carry – would permit Texans with concealed handgun licenses to carry their weapons in buildings on state university and college campuses. The other – open carry – would allow licensed Texans to openly carry holstered handguns.

So Abbott raised a few eyebrows on Tuesday with his mention of open carry, but omission of campus carry in the “State of the State.”

The regime’s vague proposals have in effect strengthened the status quo of keeping guns in the hands of those most convenient to organize for paramilitary purposes against marginalized people. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence cites a fairly well-known Mother Jones article which “concluded that more than half of the country lives in states with stronger gun laws since Newtown”, but their own analysis doesn’t signal more protection for those who are more likely to be harmed by “gun violence”, even outside of this stupid media-created definition.

While they spin “about the same number of laws (64) have strengthened state gun regulations as those that have weakened them (70)” telling us that “recent media narratives are far from accurate” (!!) we are expected to be relieved that a whopping total of four states taking action against domestic abusers by way of gun regulation is a step in the right direction. Considering the mental health effects of domestic violence on survivors, how will they then be impacted by new laws if they want to “play by the rules” and become a licensed gun owner if their mental health records aren’t in line with new regulations in “several states”?

Civilians defend themselves with guns and this fact should be uncontroversial, and those who are at more risk from violent people should have the same ability to defend themselves with force if need be. Life is not always pretty, and situations do arise where just the threat can be life saving to innocent parties simply trying to live their lives. What would happen if armed, militant feminists formed collectives for abused women to quite literally run to for protection from abusive men? Unfortunately our present reality prevents this in so many ways, and gun control historically and in practice is sexist and racist. In a similar vein, how would the Civil War have turned out if militant abolitionists did not have the ability to defend what gains they were able to make against highly armed and organized slave owner militias? Why are liberals who want to boast these advancements so ignorant to the actual material needs that facilitated them? Their conditioning and subservience to the media is quite shocking when thought through — they cannot think outside of these prepackaged boxes and they show no desire to do so.

“The Bern” has had a similar psychological effect to those that I mentioned earlier on in this post with regard to the similarities between the ISIS and gun control spectacles, and he’s had some opportunistic and milquetoast things to say on the effectiveness of gun control lately since the San Bernardino shooting. I heard NPR name drop him earlier, and this, well, it’s some meaningless fluff you would expect your drunk uncle Bernie to say at Thanksgiving.

Screen Shot 2015-12-05 at 11.22.39 PM

Weasel words — “assault weapons”. Semi-automatics have been in production since the tail end of the 19th century; the media presents them as extraordinary to confuse and instill fear.

The respectable left has lambasted us dirty reds and the like with admonitions of “oh! Look he’s saying socialism! It’s not a dirty word now!” as if this magically brings it into existence. With this most recent event now rumored to be claimed by ISIS (reports seem to conflict — whether this is true or not is no matter since the shooting was pounded into our heads as a “fluid situation”), socialism being a permissible word now among the respectable liberal left has had the opposite effect of it ever being something that could be brought about by the US’s utterly laughable electoral system. Rather it has convinced the liberal leftish crowd that they are indeed the vanguard in doing, whatever it is they are told to do I suppose — yes I vote democrat, but this gruff socialist guy is making me lean toward socialism (the respectable left cheers — this is the best chance we have!) oh is he progressive? Well that’s really descriptive of my politics anyway. He’s voting democrat down the line now, is he? That’s great and I was already doing the right thing anyway — no one should own guns I say, feel the Bern!

He will prove to be a true sheepdog to the end. Among his supporters, there’s been an attention-grabbing info graphic circulated with lots of red dots that claims there have been 162 mass shootings since Obama’s regime was installed. The subservient smug assholes at Snopes are calling foul on that one, but they still note that 47 have been committed. Regardless of the exact count, as if this tally should or shouldn’t spur action in line with the masters’ desires, it is undeniable that many if not most are coordinated with organized, official training “drills” occurring before or simultaneously. Japan is getting in on the drill action too, complete with fake injured people as well.

I read these “drills” and then “unfortunate” shootings as elaborate schemes to not only take out potential targets, but to also continue to scare people into total subservience while they give up more privileges. Americans at large are wholly unfamiliar with staged attacks on civilians in Turkey and Yugoslavia that brought on both imperialist friendly dictatorships and NATO bombs and whose dynamics parallel with these ops carried out now nearly every week. The Obama regime is no working person’s friend. Again from their gun control plan that is operating as intended:

Provide effective training for active shooter situations for 14,000 law enforcement officers, first responders, and school officials: One of the best ways to minimize the loss of life in a mass shooting is to make sure law enforcement, first responders, school officials, and others are prepared to respond to an active shooter. The Administration will immediately expand access to federal training, and federal agencies will ensure that protocols for responding to active shooter situations are consistent. And Congress should provide an additional $14 million to help train 14,000 more police officers and other public and private personnel to respond to active shooter situations.

They minimize not because they care, but because this spectacle is useful for them in so many ways, beyond just the elimination of possible targets. Since Obama took office, the neocons have been scaring everyone with “Obama’s gonna take our guns!” Yes and no seems to be the answer — if someone has had a difficult time of getting a hold of one even with the most benign intentions in mind, chances are it’s only gotten more difficult. If some have not, there may be some probability that under the most advanced surveillance state in history they have been monitored as someone who may be useful at some point to the establishment. Without careful consideration, who knows, they could just be that guy.

Overall I am of the opinion that the pure spectacle of gun control it is most useful to the masters by having their political puppets continually playing out the strategy of tension as they have been while real people continue to die by the hands of their goons in these “exercises”. Sectarian and ethnic strife remains at a high simmer — yes in these united states, as if this is a term exclusive to the orientalized regions — and having disproportionately legally armed populations is not only a fun hunger game for them to watch from above, but works to form the total order and control they seek to create out of this seeming chaos.

I could be wrong — who knows what Obama’s upcoming address will bring, perhaps a banhammer on all guns to create an “extreme black market” that will “challenge law enforcement” (requiring more moves toward an ultimate national police force?) like the NPR sock puppets were salivating about earlier this evening on the radio. American citizens were just allowed the ability to own gold again in 1974, so a nice boon like that for the feds wouldn’t be unprecedented and would prove an exciting new chapter for the psychos to place bets on for all the reasons outlined above.

The possibilities are endless! But so are the working class’s. None of this is set in stone, but the owning class has many avenues to make this work for them, so the understanding of strategy has to be thorough, including how obviously fake and botched the San Bernardino attack’s narrative is seeming to more and more who are becoming fed up with this trauma induced mind control. It’s nothing less than that on a broad scale, and the “transparency” we’re (finally! hah) getting with this one could be part of the act, so I think that is something to keep in mind as well.

With regard to Dick Seymour’s sophistry I mentioned toward the beginning, well, fuck him and all these assholes who tell us that this is the norm we should expect. That may be a statement of fact from those who’ve climbed over corpses to stand on high, but that’s not a reality we should expect for ourselves or anyone else.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s