Hypothetical “discussion” between a student and a teacher in a public school:

“No, Johnny, you can’t tell people about going hunting or target shooting.”

“Why not?”

“Because those things involve, well, you know, things that go boom or things that are sharp.”

“You mean like firecrackers and sharp-pointed scissors?”

“No! You know what I mean. Things that stupid rednecks use to make themselves feel big and powerful.”

“Oh. You mean sports cars!”

“No! I don’t mean sports cars. Don’t you cop an attitude with me, young man!” In a whisper, “I mean guns and knives; things that nice people don’t talk about, or don’t even think about, unless they are used by police or government agents in the movies or on TV. Now, don’t ever bring this up again, or you’ll be in detention until you’re twenty-five.”

(See my post, “Zero Tolerance=Zero Intelligence,” 02-12-09, tagged “Culture of informers” and “Zero Tolerance.”)

Another prime example of the cleverness of the Left in shaping young minds was the original lesson plan for the President’s speech this week to schoolchildren. (See Mike Rosen’s article, “Big Brother in Schools, Obama’s speech was early indoctrination,” The Denver Post, 09-10-09, Page 11B. You can’t miss the Lefty cartoon right above the article and under the headline.) (See my posts under the Category “Media Bias.”)

The lesson plan I am talking about is the one that was formulated before the country found out what Obama’s minions had in mind. Suffering from the angry reaction to political indoctrination in the original outline, the Administration’s education gurus removed the offending items.

What was so insidious about the original lesson plan? There were two subtle psychological ploys at work. The plan called for the students to write a paper describing how Obama’s speech had “inspired” them. The psychological kicker here is the implied assumption that the individual student had been “inspired” by Obama’s speech. What do you suppose would have happened had a student written that he or she had not been “inspired” by the President’s speech? I suspect there would have been a serious “discussion” between Teacher and student.

The expectation of the Educational Establishment, of powerful adults in charge of discipline, grading, promotion, and even continued attendance in school, would have obviously been that students would have been “inspired.” Kids aren’t stupid. They know what is expected of them and they have some idea of what is going to happen, if they don’t meet expectations.

The vast majority of students, even those who didn’t agree with, or who didn’t know anything about the President’s policies or agendas, would have felt pressured to write something positive about Obama’s “inspirational” speech. Teachers would have no doubt prompted the younger students with “suggestions” about how the speech “might” have inspired them, if the students couldn’t come up with an “appropriate” response.

The second ploy is a subliminal psychological technique bordering on hypnosis. “Write yourself a letter telling yourself how you can “help the President.” This bit of mental manipulation reminds me of a slick insurance salesman I encountered a few years ago, shortly after I completed a comprehensive course in unconscious communication techniques.

The salesman ran about eleven subliminal sales techniques on me that night in my apartment. These strategies were designed to influence me outside the awareness of my conscious mind. The verbal pattern that I still remember from his presentation is essentially a post hypnotic suggestion.

“Mark, when you need insurance, I want you to say to yourself, “Call John.” (The names have been changed to protect the guilty.) “John” had some rapport with me. I considered him to be an authority. There would have been a pretty good chance that when I needed insurance, I would say to myself, “Call John;” especially if I didn’t know the game he was playing. (No. I didn’t buy insurance, but then, I understood the game.)

If I am a child in a school run by adults who have a great deal of power over me, there is a high probability that I am going to internalize their message, presented as part of an “official” lesson plan, “How can I help the President?” Help the President do what? Get reelected? Meet his partisan political goals? Socialize medicine? Support gun control?

Enter our old friends “Cognitive Consonance” and “Cognitive Dissonance.” These are psychological terms. They have to do with the way a person organizes his or her mental world. They basically mean that ideas that agree with my view of reality are easy for me to accept and that ideas that don’t correspond to my worldview make me nervous. I will tend to embrace compatible ideas and reject or dismiss contrary information. (See my posts under the Category, “Psychology.”)

There is also what I call an “investment component” in the “Consonance” and “Dissonance” paradigm. The more of my time and effort that I put into the support of an idea, the harder it is for me to change my mind about it.

A personal example: I have put over a thousand hours in passing out Second Amendment literature at gun shows and other functions. If I were to change my mind and embrace the concept that the American People should be disarmed for their own good, I would be faced with a situation in which I had “wasted” a significant portion of my life on the “wrong” side of the issue. That would be a gut-wrenching psychological experience that would have a profound effect on my psychological landscape.

David Horowitz, author of Left Illusions and The Shadow Party, co-authored with Richard Poe, went through such a transformation following the murder of his friend Betty Van Patter by a Black Panther group in California.  (Horowitz was an important leader in the New Left and an outspoken and effective critic of the U.S. war effort in Vietnam.)  Horowitz went to other members of the American Left and Anti-war Movements to urge a cessation of support for the Panthers. He was told, in effect, by his “friends” that the injustices of the evil Capitalist System sometimes forced “oppressed people” to commits acts like murder. It took Horowitz years to explore his belief system and reorient his thinking to his current position that the Socialist and “Progressive” Movements are nihilistic and morally bankrupt. (See pages 85-90 in Left Illusions, Spence Publishing Company, Dallas, Texas, 2003, for his initial reaction to the killing of his friend.)

Forcing vulnerable school children to write how the President “inspires” them and forcing them to write letters to themselves as to how they can “help” the President create experiences that become building blocks of cognitive consonance. “I wrote the paper that ‘said’ that I was inspired. How can I now not be inspired by Obama?” “I wrote myself a letter about how I can ‘help’ the President. How can I not do everything I can to help him?”

It would take a measure of psychological sophistication that I believe is far beyond the grasp of most school children to say to themselves something like the following. “OK. I don’t agree with, or I don’t know about what the President is up to, but the teacher said I’ve got to do the writing assignments. I’ll do them, but I’ll make up my own mind regarding what I think about the President’s plans.”

You’ll notice that I slipped in a psychological jab in the phrase “…what the President is up to,…” By using that language, instead of saying something like “what the President wants,…” I am implying that there is a covert motive behind Obama’s actions. The ability to use unconscious communication cuts both ways, but I’m not afraid of an honest debate in the marketplace of ideas. Beware of people who don’t show you the man behind the curtain of Mainstream Media adulation and obfuscation. (There I go again!)

By the way, the same dynamic is operational in the Pledge of Allegiance, The National Anthem, God Bless America, America the Beautiful, and the oath of office taken by every American government official and military person. It was in the loyalty oaths to America rejected by Left-wing teachers in the 1950’s during the so-called “Red Scare.” The more that you say you will do something, the more likely you are to do it. Failure to follow through conjures up personal internal images of untruthfulness, weakness, and indecision.

I don’t want to see myself as a liar, a weakling, or indecisive. I am likely to continue to think and act in consonance with my previous oral and written statements and behaviors.

The difference between the oath of office and a pledge to the President, is that the oath of office is a vow to “…protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The pledge to the President, is, well, a pledge to Obama. I do not believe that forcing such a commitment to the support of one individual is an appropriate exercise of power for the educational system of a democratic republic.

The sin committed by those who would have school children, in effect, pledge allegiance to one man, is not that they were successful, but that they tried to succeed.

Def Mech

It’s great to hear that at least one district in Idaho has allowed kids to have a positive experience with shooting and to learn some gun handling and safety rules.  Again, I ask the question, “If sex education saves lives by preventing sexually transmitted diseases, why doesn’t every school in the country require classes in gun safety?”

Def Mech

The hearing ran for several hours, most of which seemed to be spent by the Judiciary Committee in devising language that would grant some discretion to school districts in choosing to suspend or expel students for bringing simulated firearms to school.  Current Colorado law requires suspension/expulsion for a facsimile gun on school property.

Interesting testimony was provided, which indicated that a ten-day suspension is almost a guarentee that a student would fail an entire year.  If Cherry Creek Schools had not moved up Young Marine Leader Marie Morrow’s hearing, she would have suffered about a ten day suspension, as the result of bringing three non-functional wood and plastic cadet-type training rifles to school.  She was planning to use the rifles in preparation for a drill team competition at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.  (See my post,”Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence,” under the Category: “Colorado State Issues.”

I believe Ms. Morrow’s disciplinary hearing in the school system, which occured several days before the Senate hearing on this bill, was moved up from its originally scheduled date due to pressure largely brought by Denver Talk Show Host, Peter Boyles.  The district seemed to want this situation to just go away.  Boyles arguably saved Ms. Morrow’s high school career.

 ”Zero Tolerance” was not really addressed in the hearing, except for brief tesimony from the Firearms Coalition of Colorado.  The focus of the proposed law was narrowly aimed at the possession of simulated guns, essentially in a motor vehicle.  Carrying a simulated firearm without school authorization outside a vehicle will still almost certainly result in a severe application of the full awful weight of district authority.

(For gosh sakes, as a student, don’t point a finger with a cocked thumb at another student in play, or you will learn the true meaning of “zero tolerance.”  I am still somewhat miffed over a grade school performance of Peter and the Wolf, held a few years ago in the Cherry Creek School District.  The hunters in the story carried plumber’s helpers instead of even simulated guns.  There was no symbolic artistic meaning intended there.  Not!  They didn’t shoot the wolf, as was done in the original.  As I remember they negociated a “progressive” non-aggression pact and lived happily everafter.)

At the end of the long day in the Senate Judiciary Committee, this bill apparently gives school districts the ability to decide not to discipline a student for a training rifle in a car, if law enforcement determines that the simulated gun is not a threat.  The committee chair admitted that the language may not have been the best that could be found, but promised to work with the Republican sponsor of the bill to fix any problems during second reading on the floor of the Senate, when it will be possible to offer further amendmments.

The amount of angst generated by this seemingly common sense legislation  indicates just how impossible it would be to get a real individual rights bill passed in Colorado’s current legislative climate.  It does not bode well for the Second Amendment in Colorado that even this extremely limited concession to practicality caused so much controversy.

In a Sportsman’s Caucus meeting today at the Capitol, pro-individual rights Democratic Senator Lois Tochtrop pointed out that there are currently no anti-gun bills active in either house of the legislature.  We will see what transpires after the state budget is passed.  I hope the situation remains quiet.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.  (Thomas Jefferson)

Def Mech

The Cherry Creek School District could, and probably will, expel Ms. Morrow for the rest of her senior year.  (Ms. Morrow has already secured a scholarship to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, which may or may not be affected by this nonsense.)

When questioned, school officials fell back on the old, “Orders are orders!” ploy, which didn’t work so well at Nuremberg.  (For recent public high school or college grads, the trials for Nazi war criminals were held in that German city.)  Apparently, Colorado State law does require a suspension for a real firearm on school property, as well as for “a firearm facsimile that could reasonably be mistaken for an actual firearm.”

(When I was in high school ROTC back in the 60’s, patriotic students were evidently more responsible or school officials and legislators less hoplophobic.  We used real (Gasp!) semi-automatic rifles in drill team routines.  It’s a wonder that we didn’t go berserk and kill everybody in the school and surrounding neighborhoods.)  (This is an example of sarcasm for anyone educated primarily in “self-esteem” and “social justice.”

By the way, hoplophobia is an unreasoning fear of weapons.  See my August post, ”Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns,” under the Category: “Psychology.”

Ms. Morrow’s case got more interesting, when Denver talk show host Peter Boyles engaged attorney David Lane to represent the student.  The school district responded by moving up the hearing on Ms. Morrow’s indiscretion to today, probably to limit time for fundraising activities for her legal expenses.  To Mr. Lane’s credit, he did offer his services pro bono.  (If you recently went to public school, look it up!)

The Rocky Mountain News editorialized on 12-11-09 that the law needs to be more flexible.  (”Safe needn’t be stupid…,” Rocky Mountain News, Denver Newspaper Agency, page 34.)  Yuh think?

Schools have suspended children for drawing pictures of guns.  One child drew a picture of a fortification.  When he said there was a gun in the fort, his school suspended him.  I know from the coach of a student shooting team that national-level air rifle and .22 caliber rifle target competitors are forced to call in sick to school in order to attend out of town shooting matches.  This madness with Ms. Morrow is merely the latest in a long series of paranoid abuses caused by Zero Tolerance.

Who actually believes that Zero Tolerance or “Gun Free Zones” are going to deter a sociopath bent on murder and destruction?  The Columbine High School killers, nameless here forevermore, violated about 22 state, federal and local laws.  Did school regulations stop them?

Who is going to serve in the police or military, if educators and legislators instill a superstitious dread of firearms in the minds of American students?  Oops! I forgot.  In the brave new age of Obama, we will just sit down with criminals and our international “neighbors” and talk out our differences.  It didn’t work with Hitler, but then Chamberlain wasn’t “The Chosen One.”  (If you recently graduated from public school, you know the drill…)

By the way, the schoolyard informers received food coupons as a reward for their efforts.  In psychological research, this handy arrangement is called a token economy.  When the experimental subject does what the researcher wants, the all-powerful, all-knowing scientist rewards the subject.   (positive reinforcement)  Roll over!  Sit!  Stay!  Good job!  Is this a great country or what, Comrade?

On a more positive note, let’s repeal the Zero Tolerance farce and restore some semblance of sanity in our school systems.  Republican State Senator Kevin Lundberg and “other lawmakers” are considering legislation to improve the situation.  Please give them polite encouragement.

Def Mech

The other side continues to state and apparently believes that guns, themselves, are more dangerous to their law-abiding owners and others than are the knives, clubs, and yes, guns, carried by predatory criminals. It is interesting to consider that some persons in government and academia think it is better for honest people to be victimized than it is for them to be allowed to arm themselves for self-defense.

The persistence of the “Nanny State” mentality is especially annoying considering the numerous recent attacks on young women around the CU Campus in Boulder, CO. I thought the mantra of the Left was “If it only saves one life…” Apparently no one has been killed yet in the People’s Republic, but it doesn’t look like the police have nabbed the perpetrators, either.

Def Mech

Comments from the anti-gunners on the article include fears that drunken college students will shoot up the University and lay waste to most of the surrounding area, if concealed carry permit holders are allowed to exercise their admittedly licensed rights on school property.  It might be well to remember that CCW license holders have completed training courses and background checks.  It is also against the law in Colorado to be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated or impaired. (Go to very end of the referenced page for this citation.)  But then, opponents of concealed carry and guns in general usually seem more concerned about statutory offenses than mass murder.

The opponents of defensive concealed carry seem blind to the fairly obvious logical conclusion that rapists, muggers and spree killers will likely be deterred by the knowledge that a victim or victims might be armed.  Research done by Wright and Rossi on the informal risk/benefit analyses performed by many criminals before commiting crimes certainly suggests a deterrent effect, as does research by Lott and Kleck.

The Left, of course, will probably spin this issue as one of allowing unrestricted importation of firearms onto college campuses, resulting in the ever popular “rivers of blood” scenario.  Even more sad and perplexing, the next mass murder in a “gun free” criminal friendly free-fire zone will no doubt spark an increased drive for more gun control to further deprive potential victims of sociopathic killers of their last, best chance for self-defense.

Let’s hope the CU Regents take this opportunity to “do the right thing” and “save one life” in spite of the uproar that this petition is sure to cause in Liberal Academia, especially in the People’s Republic of Boulder.  Beccaria was right and Jefferson was insightful to quote him.

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty… and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”

Let us hope that the Regents of Colorado University come down on the side of the innocents.

 Def Mech

This should come as news to Left-wing politicians and mystery movie writers who promote the idea that ballistics matching is the philosopher’s stone of criminal detection.  Their detectives frequently rely on ballistics and permit systems.  How often do we hear, “We’ve got a match!”  “Do you have a permit for that weapon?” is almost as common in crime movies as having a good character say, “I hate guns.” 

The NRC report does recommend further research into “Microstamping” technology currently required by California on all “new semiautomatic pistols sold in the state by 2010.”  (Other states are also dabbling in this panacea.)  One of the areas for additional study involves exploring the effects of possible tampering by criminals with microstamping mechanisms.

That’s a good line of investigation.  Just how hard would it be for a reasonably intelligent criminal to take a micro-sized file and remove the microstamping capability from a firing pin?  What about the old movie adage that a professional hitter, mechanic, or whoever always leaves the weapon at the scene of the crime?  Of course, an investigator might get lucky on the DNA.  Stay tuned for another report on that issue.

How about the careful criminal who uses a revolver or who polices up his or her brass after a shooting?  No brass, no microstamp.  No case, no how, no way.

How about using an older semiauto with no microstamping?  Ah!  Liberals have the criminal there!  They will simply ban or “license to death” any semiautomatic without the technology.  No criminal bent on robbery or murder would dare to obtain an illegal gun through a clandestine source. 

Wait a minute?  Criminals routinely break the law…  Might have to rethink this one, if in fact, the purpose of gun control is to keep guns out of criminal hands…  Of course it is!  The Dems said so in their draft platform plank on guns for 2008.  But then, I just bought a big bridge and a famous tomb in New York City.  Oh well…

Let’s do what the Liberals always say they want to do.  Let’s build a fence around the top of the cliff, instead of assigning an ambulance to wait at the bottom.  Let’s encourage concealed carry, so the risk-averse criminal will have to wonder if he or she is the only one with a gun in the potential crime scenario.  (Barack Obama doesn’t like this approach.  We (gun owners and civil libertarians) have no influence with him.)  Let’s keep career criminals in jail, instead of sentencing them to probation or community service.  (Not sure that this one corresponds to Democrat plans.)

Let’s also look at the immigration situation to make sure that we are not importing gang members wholesale from other countries.  (We need to influence John McCain on this issue.)  Let’s look at firearms education in the schools and more shooting ranges in our communities, so that guns will cease to be mystical, forbidden, attractive objects, and young people will have more positive role models with regard to gun ownership. 

Don’t hold your breath on any of these proactive approaches, because Liberals are quite comfortable contemplating the use of scientific innovation to strangle civilian gun ownership.  They are not comfortable with the concept that criminals are persons with evil intentions who will use whatever weapons are at hand to intimidate, rob, and kill those perceived to be weaker than themselves.

Def Mech

The folks at the NAS apparently do support sex education, while having to face the fact that about 26% of the young women in America, most of them graduates of sex education courses, have sexually transmitted diseases.

Liberals can hold these opposing ideas in their “huge” brains, because they are oh-so sophisticated (Like the Europeans), and nuanced, and cool, and “far out.”  You get the idea.  Then, when a kid who is uneducated in gun-handling, finds a pistol in a closet and accidentally shoots his sister, or himself, the Libs will swarm and scream for “safe storage,” waiting periods, registration, micro-stamping, or whatever the Left-wing talking point du jour happens to be on a given day.  In spite of the Heller Decision, Chicago’s Mayor seems intent on keeping that city’s gun ban.  (Keep in mind that Barack Obama comes out of this anti-individual rights Illinois Democrat Machine.)

According to page 5 of a fact sheet from the pro-sex ed Guttmacher Institute, “Evidence shows that comprehensive sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can help delay the onset of sexual activity among teens, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active…”

So, is Sex Ed Ok?  Apparently so.  If training kids to use contraceptives is a good idea, then, unless there is some unknown factor affecting gun safety training, that should be all right, also.  Oh!  I know.  It’s the “demonic” nature of the gun, itself.  Liberals are so scientific!  Maybe if we sacrificed a chicken before every gun safety class to drive away the evil spirits…  No!  That wouldn’t work.  PETA would have a fit.  It’s no wonder that Liberals are so confused.  How are you going to drive out evil spirits without some sort of sacrifice?

Oh yeah!  We’ll sacrifice the Bill of Rights.  Nobody really cares about that, although it’s going to be tougher after the Heller Decision.  The Libs will keep funding research until they come up with a study that indicates that gun control works.  Don’t look for much firearms safety instruction in your public schools.  However, Sex Ed should be popular, especially if the Dems win big in November.

(1) (This review of research in the field of crime control found no significant evidence that gun laws prevent crime.)  (This finding came in spite of the fact that the NAS study was apparently designed with a certain amount of anti-gun bias in mind.)  (See Kopel and Reynolds, “Political Science, Doing science a grave injustice.”)

Def Mech