The second program, “Lock and Load,” will air at 7 PM on October 21^st on Showtime.  This one takes viewers to The Shootist gun store and indoor shooting range in Englewood, Colorado.  ”Lock and Load” is a six-part attempt at “reality TV.”  Each episode will last one-half hour and portray patrons and transactions at the Englewood shop.

Both pieces will undoubtedly be condescending and dismissive with regard to gun owners and fear mongering with regard to all normal Americans who aren’t part of the “Gun Culture.”  The militia show “…may make you more than a tad nervous.”  The Shootist series is promoted as “scary in a different way…”  One of the patrons of the gun shop featured in the series is an “over-weight and put-upon husband” who plays well into the Left-wing stereotype of gun owners as fat white men seeking manhood in the ownership of firearms.

Stay alert!  Given the Obama Administration’s appointment of numerous anti-gun Czars and Cabinet Members, these programs could be more than just entertainment.  Mainstream Media documentaries have an odd way of correlating themselves with government attacks on the rights of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.

Of course, I could just be paranoid.  After all, I’m a veteran who supports the Second Amendment.  Oh Gosh! I’d better watch myself!  I could be one of those people.

Def Mech

The Philly  sample size of 675 isn’t as small as some other studies, but it pales in comparison to Dr. John Lott’s research, which looked at every single county in the United States.  Dr. Lott concluded that “shall issue” concealed carry permit regulations save lives.  See Dr. Lott’s Book, More Guns, Less Crime.

Unfortunately, the ScienceDaily.com press release trumpeting this research was echoed in the Philadelphia Daily News.  We can expect to see this “study” touted on all the usual anti-gun rights websites and raised to the level of holy writ by Left wing politicians.

See my Categories, “Media Bias,” and “Junk Science” for other examples of the Mainstream Media’s ready acceptance of any “study” that purports to bolster attacks against the fundamental rights of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.

Def Mech

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

Today, my particular bone of contention with the Left-wing media involves Mother Goose and Grim, which I submit is wasting ink agonizing over the restoration of a Second Amendment right to American Citizens in some of our national parks. This historic event is to occur early next year, after Congress passed an amendment affirming a Bush Administration rule change making possible this restoration of a lost right to self-defense.

In the simple arithmetic of the cartoon strip and probably many Liberal minds, allowing concealed carry permit holders to protect themselves and others equals exposing the parks to a hail of gunfire from trigger happy rednecks bent on killing Bambi, Thumper and each other. Don’t even mention hundreds of innocent bystanders! (Bambi and Thumper are registered trademarks of the Disney Corporation.)

We heard this same doomsday rhetoric before the passage of every “shall-issue” concealed carry law in the country. “Blood in the Streets! Fender bender shootouts! The end of civilization as we know it!”

The “expected” slaughter hasn’t happened. CCW permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Law enforcement officials in state after state have admitted as much.

The following statements are from two Texas police officials quoted by H. Sterling Burnett in Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers: Law-abiding Public Benefactors, Brief Analysis No. 324 from the National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, TX, June 2, 2,000, Page 2.

John B. Holmes, Harris Country District Attorney, said of his former opposition to concealed carry, “Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris Country, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association, stated in support of concealed carry, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen… I’m a convert.”

If someone intends to commit crimes using a firearm, how likely is he or she to go to the trouble of getting a permit? As one young gang banger opined years ago on Denver talk radio, “If you’re going to smoke somebody, you don’t need no paperwork.” Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. (Someone, somewhere, please engrave this phrase in stone over the door to a library or courthouse!)

BTW, concealed carry has nothing to do with hunting in national parks, contrary to the 09-02-09 Mother Goose… cartoon in The Denver Post. Concealed carry is primarily a defense against two-legged human predators. Open carry of defensive handguns might be a sensible option against bear or mountain lion attacks, but such a display of “evil” guns would no doubt shock many Liberal tourists out of their Ho Chi Minh sandals.

For what it’s worth, to ease the angst-ridden minds of Liberals anticipating the destruction of parks by gunfire and the catastrophic pollution of all nearby water by lead residue, there are still laws prohibiting the brandishing and discharge of these “oh-so-deadly” concealed weapons. In other words, if you are going to display or fire a gun in a national park, you would want to have a legally defensible reason.

If the laws against display and discharge don’t deter would-be evil doers, how exactly would a policy against government sanctioned concealed carry be any more efficient in preventing crime? The simple answer is, it wouldn’t! (See my posts under the Category, “Gun Law Failures.”)

Furthermore, concealed carry in national parks applies only to those states that allow concealed carry in state parks. In those jurisdictions that still restrict the Second Amendment rights of their citizens in state parks, those rights are also denied in national parks within the boundaries of the infringing state. (We’ll have to fix that problem later.)

The action of Congress and the signature of President Obama on the CCW amendment simply restored a portion of the rights previously lost by American Citizens to armed self-defense against, crime, tyranny, and genocide. The forest streams will not run red with the blood of innocents, if our national experience with concealed carry is any indication.

Take heart, Liberals! Hoplophobia can be treated. You don’t need to live in fear.

Def Mech

Sometimes, when someone asks me why otherwise intelligent people hate and fear guns, I find myself talking about psychological defense mechanisms, such as  displacement, denial, and reaction formation, among others.  While these processes, in my opinion, play a definite role, I believe it is dangerous to overlook the active propaganda campaigns promulgated by TV and movie producers, directors, and others in the media to promote a fear of weapons.  This fear is known in some circles as hoplophobia.  (See my post, “Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns, (08-17-08) tagged, “hoplophobia.”)

We must remember the role that the North Vietnamese Dich Van propaganda program, along with left-wing professors and college students, media pundits, and TV and movie producers played in destroying America’s will to resist the Communist aggression in Southeast Asia that resulted in the deaths of over two million people. (Read the book, Unheralded Victory, the defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973, by Mark W. Woodruff, Presidio Press/Random House, NY,NY, 2005, pages 231-235.

MASH, Platoon, The Deer Hunter, and Apocalypse Now are examples of the Vietnam Era propaganda war and the revisionist historical view of that battle for the hearts and minds of the American People that the Communists ultimately won.  The fight for the hearts and minds of the American People continues with regard to liberty in this country.

It’s not as though we haven’t seen anti-gun messages embedded in TV and movies.  Spielberg took the guns out of ET and didn’t mention in Schindler’s List that Schindler armed “his” Jewish workers near the end of the war to give them a last ditch chance to defend themselves from the Final Solution.  Heinlein’s Starship Troopers was morphed from a story about human self-defense against alien aggression to an anti-war parable about human aggression directed toward an apparently otherwise peaceful race of beings that just happened to be naturally well-equipped for mayhem.

Picket Fences, Alf, MASH, All in the Family, and Carole Burnett’s Little Murders to a greater or lesser degree decried the “evil” of guns on TV.  Even Chuck Norris’ Walker, Texas Ranger often made a keen distinction between “anointed” law enforcement officers versus bumbling, common citizen “vigilantes.”

In the movie, Clear and Present Danger, Harrison Ford’s character, Jack Ryan, refuses to pick up a weapon to defend himself on at least three occasions, choosing a piece of firewood over a submachine gun in the climactic fight scene with the antagonist.  In the book, Jack Ryan operates a mini-gun from a helicopter, spraying hundreds of rounds of death and destruction at the minions of the drug cartel that had captured US special operations soldiers.

In the movie, Signs, we have aliens who can’t get out of locked pantries defeated worldwide by baseball bats and clubs.  Given the number of shotguns and hunting rifles in farmhouses, how long do you think that these aliens would terrorize the Midwest depicted in the movie?  “Hi! I’m an alien. I want to kill you. No I don’t have any weapons.  Yeah, I have to get really close to hurt you.  What’s that tube in your hands?”  Bang!  Bang!  Bang!  Bang!  Bang!  End of Alien. End of story.

And, who can forget Leslie Neilson’s Agent WD 40, who explicitly delivers a vitriolic diatribe against handguns during the climactic fight scene of the movie, Spy Hard?  Not that the lines had much to do with the plot, but you know, those handguns “kill” people.  (See my post, “Has your gun caused ‘personal injuries or property damage?’  (11-19-08) tagged, “Irrational fear of guns.”

I believe that it is useful to remember that everything in a movie or TV show is under the control of the director and producer.  If they don’t want it in the finished product, it isn’t there.  If something is in the show or movie, the people who produced and directed made it so.

Keep in mind that it is legal (and moral in the minds of the media folk) to bring out productions that promote civilian disarmament.  Look at the plethora of TV shows and movies that portray properly “blessed” police officials using guns to take out bad guys?”  How often do you see a movie that promotes the idea that ordinary citizens have a right to use armed force to defend themselves and their families without being horribly scarred by the soul searing knowledge that they had to kill or wound another human being in order to do so?

How often have you seen a portrayal of a family in a movie or on TV that goes to a range and spends an enjoyable afternoon punching holes in paper?  Not often, I’ll wager.  More often, we see a bias against guns and the people who own them.

The opening quotation by Rudyard Kipling seems somehow appropriate as we discuss the new series on the Sy Fy Channel, which supposedly changed its name to appeal to females, instead of its usual male “geek” audience. (See The Denver Post article, “New ‘Warehouse 13’ has promising twists in store,” by Joanne Ostrow in the 07-07-09 issue on page 4D.

Let’s discuss Kipling!  Of course, “There is nothing new under the Sun,” not even this Biblical adage.  There is no sin in paying homage to previous successful movies and TV series.  But, come on!

In my opinion, Warehouse 13 pretty shamelessly knocks off The Librarian, Raiders of the Lost Arc, National Treasure, Men in Black, and The X Files.  The idea of a national repository, a national “attic,” of valuable/magical objects smacks of The Librarian, Men in Black, and National Treasure.  Warehouse 13 is the Library.  As pointed out in the Post article, the agents are Mulder and Scully reprised.  The balcony scene, when the agents first see the warehouse is a ringer for the National Treasure balcony scene in the Treasure Room.  The warehouse is the Treasure Room or the government warehouse in Raiders…  The character of the “curator” of the warehouse, Artie, owes a lot to Zed in Men in Black and probably more to Newhart’s character in The Librarian.

The special effects, when the bad vibes, psychic energy, or whatever, are sucked into the containment vessel hark back to the scene in Raiders, when the Nazis open the Ark.  Come to think of it, the “neutralizer” in the containment vessel could be slime borrowed from Ghostbusters or possibly Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Anti-gun propaganda in Warehouse 13 doesn’t take long to rear its head.  In about the first scene of the first show of the series, a little girl sees a gun in the waistband of the female agent protagonist.  Not understanding that the agent is chosen, anointed, special, and otherwise authorized by the proper authorities to be armed, the little girl glares angrily at the adult, because why?  Well, you know, because, guns are bad!  Anyone carrying a gun must be a bad person. We must hate and fear them and the guns they carry.

In the climax of the series opener, the male agent (Think Mulder.) takes his gun into a party dominated by the antagonist, a woman pretty much channeling Lucretia Borgia.  The agent is disarmed by one of her brainwashed minions and threatened with his own gun.  The magically deranged young man pulls the trigger of the semi-auto pistol. “Click!”

The agent (Think Mulder.) pulls the magazine of the empty pistol out of his pocket and says, “No one dies here tonight,” or words to that effect.

Sarcasm Alert!

For those of you recently educated in public schools dominated by teachers’ unions, the conscious explication of the message here is that even chosen, anointed, special, people authorized by the government to carry guns may have those guns taken away by bad people.  You see, bad people are so much faster, more dexterous, and more competent than the rest of us.  There is no use trying to defend yourself, because they will just take your gun.  (They probably wouldn’t try to hurt you, in the first place, if you didn’t threaten them with a gun.)

Sarcasm All Clear! (For now.)

Martial arts are OK, however, especially when practiced by women.  The female agent (Think Scully.) has some nifty moves, including a leg sweep take down that is almost literally to die for.  She also throws a mean punch.

Martial Arts Students, don’t get cocky! Most authoritarian regimes eventually get around to banning the civilian practice of effective unarmed methods of self-defense, once they have disarmed their populations.  The Japanese occupation of Korea comes to mind.

(Disclaimer!  The following statement is an example of hyperbole, sarcasm, exaggeration, and over-the-top humor.  Do not under any circumstances actually try to do this.  I assume no responsibility, if you get stopped by the police, arrested, maced, tasered, or shot.  It’s a joke.  Get it!  A joke!  Ha! Ha!  I just put it in here to make a point.  Excuse me. I have to call my lawyer.)

 If you don’t think that TV and movie propaganda is effective, try open carry in a major city in most states.  (No! Don’t! Don’t even think about it.  You will be fingered by an “alert” civilian, stopped by the police, and probably arrested.)  (We won’t even discuss taking a picture of a gun to a public school or university.  Zero Tolerance, you know!)

Having said all that.  I may actually tune into Warehouse 13 from time to time, even though that probably puts me in the male “geek” demographic apparently now despised by the Sy Fy Channel.  The danger inherent in propaganda embedded in “entertainment” is that the actors, directors, and producers are generally pretty good at creating a “willing suspension of disbelief” and getting the public involved with the characters and the plot lines.

Even though Warehouse 13 may be a kind of “Frankenstein’s Monster” made up of parts from other movies and series, who doesn’t empathize with Curator Artie, portly, middle-aged and woefully out of shape, when he zip lines down the rows of weird and dangerous treasures stored in the cavernous vault?  Who can’t relate to the female agent (Think Scully.) when she eats comfort food (No sugar!) to relieve stress? Details like these help flesh out characters and make us care about what happens to them as they expose themselves to danger to protect the public (us) in their fictional world.

The sad fact is, in my opinion, that these fictional characters are more real for most of us than our neighbors.  If you run into someone who hates guns and the people who own them, consider the possibility that the person has been brainwashed by, among other things, anti-gun messages carefully embedded in “entertainment.”

You can enjoy the shows.  Just be aware of the propaganda that is sent through the media of TV and movies.  Think about the backers who sponsor these shows and movies.  Do they sponsor them to make money in what’s left of the free market, or do they sponsor them, because hidden messages promote a Hard Left agenda.

“Eternal Vigilance…”

Def Mech

A quick wrap up of ongoing and recent events:

HR 45 is still a threat to gun owners’ rights.  This bill registers owners of handguns and semi-autos with magazine wells, registers all future sales, appears to ban all possession of any firearm by a person under 18 (no exceptions), and may allow BATFE personnel to come into your home to inspect your gun storage arrangements.  (See my posts under the Category: “Registration.”)

S. 843 is a new threat on an old theme.  This bill is designed to “close the gun show loophole,” which in my opinion doesn’t really exist.  In any case this bill could very well “regulate” gun shows out of existence.  I don’t see how a promoter could meet the requirements of this bill without registering every single person who enters the show.  (See my posts under the Category: “Registration.”)

The OAS CIFTA Treaty remains a threat to gun owners in conjuction with AG Holder’s misinformation regarding the number of U.S.-made guns going to Mexico and supposedly “fueling” the endemic violence in that country.  (See my post, “OAS Treaty threatens Second Amendment,” under the Category: Foreign Gun Laws.”)  (See also, “Left overstates US gun impact on Mexican Violence,” under the Category, “Media Bias.”)

Homeland Security Chief Napolitano’s report linking gun rights advocates and other “right wing extremists” to possible terrorism dovetails with HR 2159, which is a retread of a bill introduced last year that allows the Attorney General to designate you to be a terrorist on the basis of hearsay information.  Once you have been so designated you can not legally own a firearm or board an airplane.  You may not have the right to confront your accuser and getting off the list in the case of a mistake may be very difficult.   

Governor Bill Ritter vetoed HB 1180, a Colorado bill that would have allowed concealed carry permit holders to use their permits to buy a gun without going through an additional background check.  Montana, Wyoming, and Utah are using this system without having a flood of blood in the streets.  (See my posts on HB 1180 under the Category: “Colorado State Issues.”)

On the positive side, the U.S. House and Senate just passed an amendment to a credit card bill that will support the Bush Administration ruling allowing concealed carry permit holders to defend themselves and others in national parks in states that recognize their permits.  We’ll see how this shakes out in Colorado.  Left-wing, Mainstream Media bias shock jocks are working overtime on this one.  Even Fox News aired a misleading, simplified version of the legislation.

Don’t get complacent, because we won this battle.  The above listed bills. the Obama record on guns, and his anti-gun appointments to key positions portend a hard road ahead for the Second Amendment, once the Democrats finish socializing the rest of American Society.

Look for a high profile shooting spree in the near future to boost the Left’s argument for more gun control.  (See my posts under the Category: “Conspiracy Theories.”)

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, “  Thomas Jefferson.

“Nothing in politics happens by chance,” (paraphrase) FDR.

Def Mech

On Page One, “Obama takes aim at flow of arms to Mexico,” the Post quoted Mexican President Calderon as saying that, “90% of the weapons seized in Mexico can be traced to the United States.”  You would think that somebody, the President of Mexico, someone on the Associated Press staff, or someone at The Denver Post would have watched the Fox News story that blew the “90%” canard out of the water.  (See my post: “Left overstates US gun impact on Mexican Violence,” tagged: “Mexican gun violence,” done on 04-07-09.)

In actuality, about 17% of the crime guns seized in Mexico came from the US market.  By allowing this “90%” misinformation to stand without comment, both the AP and the Post seemed to demonstrate either ignorance or bias.

On Page 12 B, The Denver Post printed an editorial from the anti-gun rights Washington Post.  In this piece, the writers opined that the Interior Department should reject the Bush Administration rule allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in national parks in states that honor their permits.  The editorial mischaracterized the rule by saying that the regulation allows “visitors” to carry concealed, loaded guns.  In reality, all CCW permit holders in parks would be visitors, but not all park visitors would be CCW permit holders.

The uninformed reader would naturally believe from this piece that all visitors could legally carry concealed.  The writers go on to emote a “parade of horribles,” including increased poaching, accidental shootings of wildlife and park visitors, and apparently (Gasp!) lead pollution from the tons of bullets that would presumably be sprayed around the parks by red-necked, racist, sexist, one-toothed, beer-swilling, gun-toting barbarians.  (See my posts on the parks under the Category: “Concealed Carry.)

(According to a more recent post on the Volokh Conspiracy, the Washington Post got its wish.  The Obama Administration has apparently decided not to appeal the liberal judge’s injunction against the Bush rule.  The Department of the Interior will reportedly keep the matter under study, but I think that we can conclude that concealed carry in national parks is a dead issue, at least until after the next presidential election.)

The Washington Post editorial reflected its usual animus toward armed self-defense against crime.  The Denver Post, by publishing this piece without comment, either exposed its own indifference to the details of the situation or a tacit agreement with the misinformation contained in the editorial.

David Sirota, in his op-ed piece, “Columbine questions we didn’t ask,” blamed spree killings on our warlike, violent society, that, according to him, has a “winner take all economy,” and “The killing machine…” of our “defense and security” establishments.  Michael Moore said essentially the same thing in his distorted “mocumentary,” Bowling for Columbine. (See David Kopel’s excellent deconstruction of Bowling…here.)

Sirota wasn’t shy about his own bias.  ”…the assault weapons ban expiration is an abomination.”  Never mind the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of the Sciences could find no significant crime prevention benefit from the ban or other gun control laws. (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

At least, Sirota rejected the simplistic notion that guns cause crime, although he didn’t bother to explain his animus against semi-automatic firearms, which he misnames, “assault weapons.”  It would be interesting to see his rationale for this dislike of these common guns, which many liberals seem to view as a necessary article of their faith.

Sirota’s opinion that the American defense establishment, journalists who support the military, and “every other suit-and-tie clad industry,” (whoever they are) promote the idea that “…killing is a legitimate form of national ambition and self-expression,” seems to be a bit over the top for my taste.  (See my politically incorrect posts under the Category: “War on Terror.”)

In conclusion, Friday’s Denver post was rife with sentiment against guns and gun owners, without so much as a single, mewling letter to the editor expressing the other side of the argument.  It’s no wonder that people who only get their “news” and opinions from Mainstream Media outlets are misinformed about the costs and benefits of firearms to society.  (See my Category: “Benefits of Guns.”)

“Obviously a man’s judgement cannot be better than the information on which he has based it.  Give him the truth and he may still go wrong when he has the chance to be right, but give him no news or present him only with distorted and incomplete data, with ignorant, sloppy or biased reporting, with propaganda and deliberate falsehood, and you destroy his whole reasoning processes, and make him something less than a man.”  (Address to the New York State Publishers Association, August 30^th, 1948)Bartlett, John, Familiar Quotations, Fourteenth Edition, Brown, Little and Company, Boston and Toronto, 1968, Page 1020 a.)

I would argue that the same concept applies to women and students of all ages.  If more Americans do not get a balanced view of the world from the New Media, (Internet, Talk Radio, and Cable News) I believe that we are headed for a new Dark Age of ignorance and savagery.  The ancient Romans thought that they had grown beyond the reach of history and that their republic would last forever.  (Remember!  Rome is the “Eternal City.”)  Many Americans believe that we have grown beyond the reach of history…

Def Mech

The CBS hit piece on Americans’ right to self-defense from crime, tyranny and genocide apparently followed an NBC attack on 04-10-09.  We can expect an increasingly shrill crescendo of anti-Second Amendment rhetoric until at least after the anniversary of the Columbine killings.  There may be anti-NRA demonstrations at the Phoenix convention in May.

Why do I say that the CBS piece was biased?  Let’s look first at the timing of the piece to fit in with the annual, anti-gun rights, spring barrage.  The annual Columbine mourning and the upcoming annual NRA Convention provide ample targets for this sort of propaganda.

Next, let’s look at the structure of the segment.  It was a typical “advocacy journalism” set up.  The story opened with the implication that guns cause mass murders and that people buying guns is not a good thing.  The producers bring on a “straw man,” in this case the head of a Virginia gun rights organization.  Then, the presentation closes with a sound bite from anti-gun California Senator, Diane Feinstein, intimately associated with the first ban on semi-automatic firearms during the Clinton Administration.

You will notice that the pro gun-control side of the argument got the first and last slots in the segment.  It was designed this way, so viewers will tend to remember the anti-gun message.  The pro-gun rights “straw man” was “rebutted” by the closing arguments.

The “straw man” did mention that just one legally-armed student might have aborted the Virginia Tech Killings, which occurred in a “gun free criminal safe free fire zone.”  However, that statement was effectively drowned in the much more extensive coverage given to the anti-gun side of the argument.

Keep in mind that the producers controlled every minute aspect of this “news” report.  They just “happened,” to photograph some Nazi swastika flags at the gun show during the interview with the “straw man.”  These flags are normally displayed in conjunction with displays offering collections of war trophy Nazi memorabilia.  The casual observer of the “news” story probably wouldn’t know this, nor even consciously be aware that he or she was being led to associate the flags with the “straw man.”  Get it!  “Gun shows and gun rights are tied to Nazism!”  Excellent job of unconscious psychological persuasion!  Pavlov, not to mention Lenin, would be proud.

Let’s look at the advocates for the various sides in this “news” story.  There was one pro-individual rights advocate interviewed.  There were five pro-gun control viewpoints presented, including interviews with a wounded Virginia Tech student, the relative of a person killed in the Virginia Tech Massacre, an anti-gun law enforcement representative, and Diane Feinstein.  Illinois anti-gun Senator Dick Durbin got in his two cents for “sensible gun laws” in a sound bite.  Five to one aren’t bad odds  in a “news” story?

You will note that there were no persons interviewed or quoted who had employed firearms for self-defense, even though Dr. Gary Kleck estimates that up to 2.5 million defensive uses of guns occur every year.  You wouldn’t know it from this report.

Language is also telling.  The report misidentified semi-automatic, or self-loading firearms, as “assault weapons.”  ”Assaults” are bad things, right?  By pejorative labeling of commonly owned guns, the producers can shape the perceptions of viewers in the desired direction.

Real “assault weapons” are capable of fully automatic fire.  The guns shown in the news story are not.  You have to pull the trigger every time to fire a round from a self-loading firearm.  With a full-auto weapon, you pull the trigger and the gun will fire multiple rounds.  Advocates for more gun control typically deliberately blur this distinction.

In the segment, advocates for individual rights were called “The Gun Lobby,” which has a “stranglehold” on Congress.  Private sales of firearms at gun shows without background checks are referred to as “The Gun Show Loophole.”  (Ooh! Doesn’t that make you want to close that pesky “loophole,” register all gun sales, and force those nasty “gun lobby stranglers” back under the rocks from which they crawled?)

Never fear!  Even though the police are currently “outgunned” by drug dealers and gang bangers armed with their “gun of choice,” the “assault weapon,” Diane Feinstein will pick the time and place to push her gun control legislation and save us all from ourselves.

It’s extremely interesting to me that criminals and gangs didn’t seem to have a lot of interest in semi-automatic rifles, until the news media began hyping the idea that self-loading firearms were “guns of choice.”  I suppose the media had to point out to the gangsters what guns they should be using.

According to the CBS report, a recent poll indicated that “only” 49% of Americans currently favor stricter gun control laws.  After a few weeks of this kind of “news” reporting, the numbers will probably rise.

Now, I don’t object to the fact that CBS and “60 Minutes” producers have opinions on the issue of gun control.  I would just like them to express their opinions as opinions, and stop calling them “news.”  I would also like Mainstream Media pundits to clean up their language on the debate and stop trying to shape public opinion against gun owners.  Silly me!  That’s what advocacy journalism does! They have to make the world a ” better place”, a place like Chicago, or Oakland.  (See my posts under the Category: “Gun Law Failures.”)

Def Mech

The report goes on to describe smuggling from other countries and desertions from the Mexican Army as other sources of firearms used in the epidemic bloodbath south of the border.  In spite of their draconian anti-gun laws, gang violence continues to tear the country apart.  (See my posts on Mexico under the Category, “Foreign Gun Laws.”)

Don’t look for the well-funded and ideologically-driven Left to abandon the Mexican situation as a springboard for more U.S. gun control.  In spite of the fact that we have about 22,000 gun laws in this country, Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, describes the U.S. “gun market” as “wide open.”

Def Mech

Opponents were apparently concerned about the environmental impact of lead that would “undoubtedly” be sprayed around the parks by “kill-crazed” permit holders, as well as the “danger” to visitors, and the “danger” of “opportunistic poaching.”  The rationales would be the stuff of  Marx Brothers’ comedy, in my opinion, if they weren’t put forth as reasoned arguments by supposedly competent people.

Perhaps the most specious argument against concealed carry in the parks, is that the presence of guns would discourage park visitors and potential volunteers by making them feel “unsafe.”  Hoplophobia (fear of weapons) is probably a curable mental issue, but sometimes, I wonder.  (See my post, “Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns,” 08-17-08, under the Category: “Psychology.”) 

The next time that a female hiker is raped and murdered in a national park, or a hiker gets mauled by a bear or mountain lion, let’s think back on this decision and ponder deeply about what these apparent opponents of common sense could have been thinking.  (These are the people that “don’t want to take your gun,” but who support gun bans, gun registration, ammunition restrictions, ammunition bans, closing down rifle ranges, and hate the whole idea of concealed carry.) 

Let’s then get behind the Mainstream Media blitz to return concealed carry to national parks.  Oh!  Wait!  There won’t be a media blitz.  The Mainstream Media doesn’t like ideas that don’t coincide with the party line. 

I guess the best that we can hope for is that the victims of human and animal predation in national parks will be hoplophobes, and not people who would have defended themselves, if they had been given a chance.  This seems cruel, but unarmed victims are not that high on the food chain.  

Def Mech