Apology and Population Control
I have no idea how this is going to end up time-stamped. I'm starting it at 292118MAY08, (9:18 PM, 29 May 2008 for those who don't read DTGs). I'll finish it when I finish it. This addresses but one of the flaming rants I have bottled up inside, but this weekend, my priority is really on doing stuff with my hands rather than the intellectual effort of writing.
The original inspiration which made me decide to shake off this malaise of incoherency was a series of links I saw on, of all things, gun control.
As many people are probably already aware, a Philadelphia cop was shot and killed. Tragic, I'm sure, but a part of the game. Well, then things go off the rails. The Liberal Left (as personified by Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter) have issued the usual post-mortem, which is that ready availability of guns is the culprit in this case. They have called for a reissue of the un-Constitutional and logically indefensible "assault weapons ban" (you can't ban something you can't define, and I defy anyone to define 'assault weapon' meaningfully)
But wait, there's More To The Story, as there often is. It seems that these three individuals who have been charged have a history.
Levon Warner was sentenced in 1997 to up to 15 years for robbery, one to five for possessing an instrument of crime and five to 10 for criminal conspiracy. Howard Cain was convicted in 1996 on four counts of robbery and sentenced to five to 10 years on each count. Eric Floyd was sentenced to five to 10 years in 1995 for robbery, rearrested in 1999 for parole violation and later convicted in 2001 for two robberies. (Source: Republican-American, who cites an editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News).
None of these men could have LEGALLY purchased a firearm anywhere in the United States. The firearms used were either stolen, or black market. Or both.
Further, while I don't have a fancy legal degree, I'm pretty sure that four times five is twenty years, and that Mr. Cain should NOT have been on the street a mere 12 years later, much less possessing a firearm.
The motivation of the Pennsylvania government is made perfectly clear by some other facts we have available.
Mr Cain, the alleged trigger man had a record of illegally possessing a firearm.
"Over Cain’s criminal career he had thirteen arrests for unlawfully carrying a firearm, that were listed “Nolle Prossed,” meaning the prosecutor chose not to bring charges. In a further eleven arrests for violations of Pennsylvania’s firearms laws, the charges were either withdrawn or dismissed. In only three cases was he prosecuted and either plead guilty or was found guilty. On weapons charges alone, he could have done 12 years in prison, in which case he would not have been on the streets to kill a police officer." (Source Includes a downloadable pdf of Mr. Cain's 15 page criminal record)
Obviously, further restriction of gun ownership is not necessary to prevent people like Mr. Cain from shooting policemen. What would have been necessary would be for the District Attorney to have previously prosecuted Mr. Cain and locked his punk ass up in prison so that he would be prevented from shooting policemen or anyone else. Also would have slowed down his theft, criminal conspiracy, unlawful use of an automobile, kidnapping threats, interference with child custody, unlawful possession of a weapon, etc, etc, etc.
Also at issue is the policy of releasing career criminals on parole regardless of the fact that they have committed parole violations in the past and shown no inclination to NOT commit further crimes. Mr. Walters in his article (cited above) suggests that when a parole board releases a criminal who subsequently commits a crime during the time when he would have been locked up otherwise, the parole board should be charged as accessories and sentenced.
As far as I am concerned, the District Attorney should be prosecuted as an accessory to murder for failing to prosecute these men in a serious way before they killed someone, as should the parole boards who released these animals back onto the street.
What is the further restriction of gun ownership aimed at? Law-abiding citizens. Liberals of the breed represented by Nutter and Rendell have no objection to criminality per se, as it represents job security for them and does not threaten their grip on power. An armed citizenry which is not beholden to governments for basic protection from the average violent criminal is less easily controlled as completely as Nutter and Rendell would desire. And that is their true objection, to free men. Not gun control in and of itself, but population control of which gun control is a single element.
Of course, this tack may be objected to as flaming paranoia. And it is entirely possible that I am being paranoid. No parallels should be drawn between American Democratic Party leadership and examples overseas. Most especially one should not draw attention to their English counterparts who, having successfully disarmed the population by banning firearms and traditional edged weapons, are now going after cooking knives. Part of this is driven, I am sure, by the desire to ensure that at no time may the subjects object to anything that is done to them by their lords and masters. The rest is driven by the condescending pseudo-parental urge that liberals have to "take care" of people--as if human beings were not capable of such a difficult feat on their own. For example, a city council in England wants to cut down an old tree on the grounds that it has sharp needles.
As an aside, it is highly amusing to juxtapose these two articles with this one, with the introductory line:
Despite the fact there are more than 200 million guns in circulation, there is a certain tranquility and civility about American life.
Having been fed the propaganda that guns (and other implements) cause violence in and of themselves, it seems some Brits are surprised that we aren't blowing each other away in the streets on a daily basis.
"Folks will have guns in all of these places and if you break into their homes they will probably kill you."
"They will occasionally kill each other in anger or by mistake, but you never feel as unsafe as you can feel in south London."
Seriously, back to the sharp needles. If a kid had killed himself on the needles it would have been in the story, I'm sure. But preemptively, because some self-appointed busybodies (and if you get into politics, you're self-selecting yourself as a busybody) decided it wouldn't be safe for this tree to continue to exist. I'm all in favor of risk assessment, but I believe if people don't engage in at least some level of risky behavior, then they are no longer humans, but cattle. What did we develop intellect for if only to shuffle through a padded guaranteed "safe" existence engaging only in those behaviors deemed acceptable by some "elite" to whom we concede all sovereignty?
I'm reminded of a Robert Heinlein novel about a future in which low-level genetic engineering was an accepted part of society, not extreme modifications, but if a couple were planning to conceive they went in to check and ensure that the child would not be hampered by genetic disease or the like. Over generations of this, they had managed to weed out even things like bad teeth and bad eyesight. But at one point, two characters are talking about the history of the world which led to this state of affairs. One of them mentions that one of the first behavioral modifications attempted by genetic means was the successful attempt to locate genetic markers for violent behavior and to eliminate them, producing people who simply could not engage in violence. It's a predominant mind-set among humans at any time--the fighter has always been in the minority. This experiment failed when a small group of people refuse to partake in it. The other person asked what became of them. The answer: "Every human being alive today is descended from them."
Real Liberals--for the sake of convenience defined as "people who believe what liberals believed before the American Liberal Establishment fell in love with Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin" even catch this. Check out this love-song to the Second Amendment published on Daily Kos.
That's right folks, I'm linking to the Daily Kos with a hearty thumbs-up. I don't agree with all of the reasoning in there, but I love this post. Liberals in the old, classic sense (folks like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson) were all about militias, posses, and military-style firearms in every household precisely because that was (and is) the best way to prevent tyranny. I look at it as self-defense. Most likely self-defense from criminals, but in extreme cases from a tyrannical government. Of course, my standards for when a revolution is acceptable are somewhat different from a fellow who posts at the Daily Kos, I'm sure. But I have them, and that terrifies Progressives (folks who think of themselves as liberal but who are really Marxists stripped of the Marxist-Leninist verbage when in public).