Dennis Prager is one of my favorite Conservative thinkers.  He is a talk radio host.  (Oh!  My goodness!)  This vocation makes him a target of the Progressive Left that is driving this country into what I believe to be a web of Marxist Socialism.  Dennis Prager is also a Rabbi, which gives the lie to the Leftist canard that all Conservatives and Second Amendment supporters are anti-Semites.  In fact, a considerable number of important Conservative thinkers are Jews.  David Horowitz, Alan Gottlieb, Dick Morris, Mark Levin, Aaron Zelman, and Michael Savage come to mind.

For the record, I am not Jewish.  I was raised a Methodist, but stopped attending the church over its support of the World Council of Churches and the Religious Left’s fascination with gun control.

David Horowitz was a Red Diaper Baby, a founder of the 1960’s New Left, and a pioneer of the anti-Vietnam War Movement.  He initially split with the American Communists over their failure to break ties with a Black Panther group in California.  The Panthers murdered a friend that Horowitz had placed with the group as a bookkeeper.  Horowitz knows the machinations of the Left as well as anyone.  While he does not typically deal with Second Amendment issues, his books, Left Illusions and The Shadow Party should be required reading in every high school in America.  (They won’t be read as long as young people are required to sing songs in schools praising Barack Obama.)

Alan Gottlieb is a guiding light in the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation.  These groups put on a national gun rights conference every year that should be attended, if at all possible, by everyone interested in the fundamental, natural right to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide enjoyed by American Citizens and recognized by the Second Amendment.  Gottlieb has written numerous books, including Politically Correct Guns, and The Gunrights Fact Book.

Dick Morris was the brains of the Clinton White House, before philosophical differences and personality rifts deprived Bill and Hillary of his considerable talents.  He knows more about the Clintons than anyone else who is alive and willing to talk.  His latest book is entitled, Catastrophe.

Mark Levin is another radio talk show host.  Ooh!  Scary, if you are a Liberal.  He has written several books, including Liberty and Tyranny, a Conservative Manifesto, and Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is destroying America.

Aaron Zelman founded Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.  (JPFO)  Their cartoon comic book series, Grandpa Jack, should be required reading in every grade school in this country.  (This will not happen as long as the teachers’ unions control the classrooms.)  The JPFO Website is rightly famous for its “Genocide List” which chronicles the relationship between gun control and genocide throughout world history.

Michael Savage is the stage name of another radio talk show host.  Oooh!  He has written a book entitled Liberalism is Mental Disorder, which pretty much sums up his take on the situation.

In terms of talk show style, Prager is a gentle listener who believably says that “He prefers clarity to agreement.”  Levin and Savage do not suffer fools lightly. 

Horowitz is a tireless campaigner for intellectual liberty on college campuses.  His Websites, Frontpage Magazine, and DiscovertheNetworks.com, track the interlocking web of billionaire-funded organizations that fuel the Democrat Political Machine.  Gottlieb works with the National Rifle Association in filing lawsuits against repressive anti-gun regulations.  Zelman’s JPFO often criticizes the NRA for compromises regarding gun rights issues.  Savage frequently proclaims a pox on both the GOP and the Democrat Party and has threatened to start a third party movement.  Morris is a regular on Fox News.  (Oh!  No!  Not Fox News!)  He also has his own website and an online newsletter.

The above individuals are Conservative Jews.  I believe their contributions to the cause of American freedom are invaluable.  The Liberal stereotype of Conservatives as angry, skinhead, mean-spirited. knuckle-dragging, racist bigots clearly does not hold water.  This  divide between Liberal dogma and reality must be a troubling intellectual thorn in the side for honest thinkers on the Left.  Actually, I’m a bit puzzled myself.  Given the painful memory of the Nazi Holocaust’s campaign of death against unarmed Jews and the current administration’s apparent inability to deal with Iran’s nuclear threat to Israel, it is somewhat surprising to me that more American Jews do not embrace the Second Amendment, other conservative values, and the Republican Party.  (JPFO has a section on the Website that deals with this issue.)

Def Mech

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

American Liberals say of our international enemies,in effect, that “You teach trust by trusting.”  The British Boy Scouts, the cradle of worldwide scouting, have just told their young members that they are not worthy of trust.  Oh, the theme isn’t new, Britain has draconian laws against gun ownership.  They don’t seem to trust their adults, either. (You know, the Great Unwashed, those commoners, those subjects, are so violent and unreliable.)

I guess the only thing that I can say to the British People is that I am so very sorry that you have surrendered your rights and your freedoms to an
upper class elite, who are now in a position to dictate to you how you will drink beverages, and whether or not you are allowed to defend yourselves against felonious assault. (See my previous posts under the Category “Foreign Gun Laws.”)

There is very little else left to say to the British. To American gun owners, Second Amendment advocates, and lovers of liberty: TAKE HEED! The slippery slope of our neighbors across the pond leads to the very bottom of the swamp!

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

The story in The Denver Post, “08 Race worker held in damage to Democratic HQ,” by Jessica Fender, appeared on Page 1B of the 08-26-09 paper. Litwin’s piece, “Bemused by the pane and the story,” showed up on Page 2A of the same edition.

In describing the alleged perpetrator as a possible agent provocateur, Boyles shined a light on an extremely dangerous tactic that is always available to those who would socialize medicine and disarm the American People in the name of “progress.” If you believe in the utopian dream of the perfectly managed society, then the ends justify the means.  This may mean attacking your own side and trying to blame it on someone else.   As David Horowitz wrote on Page 438 of his excellent book, Left Illusions, “If you believe in a future that will redeem mankind, what lie will you not tell, and what crime will you not commit, to make the future happen?”

The purpose of this crime may have been to cast false blame on the so-called “Nazis,” “haters,” and other conservative “wing nuts” who dare to oppose the statist policies of the Obama Administration. The blame game ploy is as old as history. Nero used the fire that destroyed much of Rome to justify persecution of early Christians. Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to boost support for his takeover the German Government. (Who started the fires? We will probably never know.)

I’m not saying that the alleged perpetrator and his unidentified accomplice were paid by anyone to commit an act of political vandalism. Mr. Schwenkler had worked in the past for an organization with Left-wing ties, according to the news stories. If he did shatter the windows of the Democrat Headquarters, he may well have acted out of personal conviction and not as a paid operative.

It is also possible that the actual perpetrator of this crime is so far Left that breaking out the windows was a protest.  Perhaps the socialized medicine scheme pushed by the Obama Administration does not go far enough. Litwin mused over this conundrum in his article.

It now appears that anarchist web sites are raising bail money for Schwenkler, who is reportedly an individual with ties to far-Left anarchist organizations. It may be that this incident is an internecine quarrel between Leftists.

In any case, defenders of the right of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny and genocide must be ever vigilant against agent provocateurs who seek to demonize firearms and the people who own them. We must closely examine every single high profile mass murder and spree killing for evidence of possible external influences. See my post of 03-12-09, “Look for more shootings after church killing and more calls for gun control,” tagged “Conspiracy Theory.”

We must also be aware of Left-wing media bias that magnifies alleged wrongdoing associated with conservatives and minimizes  crimes committed by the “progressive” Left. See my Category, “Media Bias.” As Edmond Burke wrote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Burke also said, “The people never give up their liberty but under some delusion.”

Avoid delusions! Let us actively support the civil rights of all Americans and be acutely suspicious of anyone who approaches the jewel of liberty that is our Bill of Rights.  We must educate citizens to avoid knee jerk reactions.  Every attack on the Left is not from the Right.  Sometimes, the Left attacks the Left.

Def Mech

The headline, “Actor to testify against killer,” appeared in The Denver Post on 01-27-09 on Page 14A.  The article described Mr. Grammer’s efforts to adequately punish one of his sister’s killers and save society from further outrages.

Bob Russel, a former Colorado Springs District Attorney, told The Denver Post Reporter that Mr. Grammer “felt guilty…because he didn’t protect…” his sister.  Of course, he couldn’t have kept her from harm, because it is impossible for good people to shield everyone they love from the evil actions of felons and sociopaths. Nevertheless, this sense of guilt is often psychologically transformed in the minds of relatives and other loved ones of crime victims into a visceral hatred for anything associated with the crime.

We frequently see this defense mechanism of displacement at work in cases where the weapon involved happened to be a firearm.  The displacement of feelings of guilt, anger, and overwhelming loss that accompanies  a fatal crime helps to ease the burden of the survivor by providing a scapegoat, a target for the negative emotions that are eating away at the grieving individual.  An unreasoning fear of weapons may also be described by the term hoplophobia.  (See my post “Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns,” 08-17-2008, tagged “hoplophobia”)

To my knowledge, and I believe to his credit, Mr. Grammer has never advocated banning knives or imposing draconian restrictions on the people who own them.  Instead of displacing his anger, Mr. Grammer has appropriately directed it against the perpetrator of the horrible crime against his sister.  By his actions, Mr. Grammer is taking a positive step to insure that a dangerous felon is not released back into society to kill again.

It would be a good thing, if all relatives and other loved ones of crime victims were this rational and precise in their response to tragedy.  Sometimes, however, it is harder to target specific perpetrators. What happens if the criminals are out of reach of the survivors, because they have been killed, committed suicide, or evaded the law?  It would seem to make sense to direct blame against individuals in the criminal classes who commit violence, e.g., muggers, killers, and rapists, to name a few.

Unfortunately, in many cases, survivors’ anger is inappropriately directed at law-abiding citizens and heretofore-legal behaviors.  I am referring, of course, to legal gun ownership and the right of Americans to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide recognized by the Second Amendment.

We, who struggle to preserve that right against all infringement, owe Mr. Grammer a vote of thanks for his courage and insight in opposing the parole of a triple murderer.  It makes sense to punish offenders. It does not make sense to disarm or hinder potential victims.

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

The US Justice Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program supported the project.  CU Professor Mark Pogrebin led the team of CU and CSU researchers, who surveyed prisoners in 2003, 2004.

We should keep in mind that 73 individuals constitute an extremely small sample size, totaling about four percent of the subjects of the landmark prison study done by Professors Wright and Rossi.  (See my post under the Category: “Research.”)

The Colorado study group may have been an available sample rather than a random sample, but we will have to wait for the book in July to look at their selection process.

Given these potential limitations, we can consider the self-reports of the prisoners to be representative to some degree of the Colorado population of convicted felons who have used firearms in the commission of a crime.  (We should keep in mind that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm.)

It will be instructive to find out if the book goes into other crimes committed by the research subjects.  The book does apparently touch on the role of drugs, especially Meth, in increasing violent criminal behavior.  (It is also illegal for drug addicts to possess firearms.)

According to the article, the Colorado findings suggest that “gun-control laws would have had little effect on the study subjects’ criminal behavior.”  The impressive CDC Study and the even more massive NAS Study, which indicate that there is no substantial scientific evidence that gun control laws prevent crime, support this conclusion.  (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

Another interesting finding of the study in question is that some criminals would be deterred by liberal concealed carry laws.  Wright and Rossi found that criminals are risk averse and, in effect, do a kind of risk/benefit analysis when selecting victims.

Florida Scientist Gary Kleck found up to 2 million defensive uses of firearms every year in the United States.  Economist John Lott postulates that “shall issue” concealed carry laws save lives and reduce crime.  (See David Kopel’s review of John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime, here.)

An interesting artifact of the Colorado Study is that “most inmates said that concealed weapons…” or “the perception” of concealed weapons in the hands of potential victims would lead to more violent behavior on the part of the criminals.  There are two possible problems with giving credence to this idea.

The first problem is that the criminals in the study group could have been motivated by bravado, attempting to convince the researchers (and themselves) that they were not intimidated by the idea of relatively widespread, spontaneous, armed opposition to their felonious acts.  The second, and more insidious possibility, is that the convicts knew that their responses might find their way into public policy debates on concealed weapons permits.  What better way for a career criminal to improve “business conditions” than to provide responses to researchers that might actually disarm potential victims?

Most criminals do not attack police officers in order to take their weapons.  Few criminals attempt armed robberies at gun stores or gun shows.  I personally give more weight to the much larger Wright and Rossi Study and the evidence of crime deterrence suggested by Dr. Kleck and Dr. Lott.

One convict’s remark that he would shoot people he thought were carrying concealed guns should make it abundantly clear that CCW permit holders’ names must be kept private to protect them and society as a whole.  Another implication of this individual’s attitude is that we should incarcerate dangerous felons for as long as possible to keep them from committing future criminal acts.

According to the Post article, this small Colorado study seems to agree with much of the research supporting the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of American Citizens to self-defense against crime.  Defense against tyranny and genocide appear to be beyond the scope of the study.  It will be interesting to check out the book.

Def Mech

An Internet search of ”Ninth Circuit Court,”" Nordyke,” and “ Second Amendment,” will give you a great sample of blogs and organizational websites concerned with the debate over the fundamental right of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.  What is missing from this picture?

Out of thirty pages of Internet search results, I could find one mention of the decision by a newspaper or TV source.  The Seattle Post Intelligencer ran the Second Amendment Foundation’s press release.  Where in the name of cowardly chicken feathers were the rest of the Mainstream Media on this story?

There was actually something here that they would have liked to report: the court ruled in favor of Alameda County, California,  in banning gun shows on county property.  This decision is in keeping with some legal scholars’ opinions that Heller will not be enough to prevent massive government infringement of the rights recognized by the Second Amendment.  (More on this issue later.)

My immediate concern is the deafening silence of the national print and electronic media that are supposed to be the bulwarks of our informed discussion on critical issues.  It has become blatantly obvious to anyone who observed the lack of reporting or biased reporting of the “Tea Party” demonstrations that the Mainstream Media is more than ever determined to ignore or marginalize any occurrence that does not further the Socialist Agenda of the hard left radicals who have taken over the Universities, the “Old Media,” and the Democrat Party.

There has been a well-known, long-term Liberal bias in newspapers, television and magazine reporting.  (See my posts under the Category: “Media Bias.”)  The extent to which the Old Media now grovel at the feet of “The Chosen One” in the White House is truly beyond belief.

In any discussion with people who get their news from most newspapers, magazines, or TV outlets, the first painful thing you might want to tell them is, “You have been stonewalled and deceived.”  This is a hard position to come from, because it runs into “cognitive dissonance” issues.  People don’t want to believe that they have been deceived by their trusted sources of information, because this calls into question their personal intelligence and judgement. 

Not only do they not want to admit to past mistakes, an admission of questionable judgement means that they will be afraid to rely on their own cognitive abilities in the future.  A scary prospect, indeed!  Most people won’t make the jump, but will seek refuge in defense mechanisms, such as denial, displacement, projection, reaction formation, etc.  (See my post entitled, “Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns,” 08-17-08, under the Category: “psychology.”)

Numerous sources have documented that some ordinary German Citizens stated after the war that Adolf Hitler received “bad advice” or was “misunderstood.”  This, after the bloody socialist dictator had engineered the destruction of his country and perpetrated the Holocaust.  Read Mayer’s They Thought They Were Free, excerpt here,  to get a better understanding of how honest people became involved in socialist discrimination and genocide in Nazi Germany.

It is much harder, but probably a better tactic to ask liberals questions about their beliefs and try to identify areas that they are less sure about in their own minds.  Be patient.  It is highly unlikely that you will “convert” someone during a single discussion.  Remember that they have a lifetime of conditioning and what I believe to be misinformation behind their belief systems.  When you directly attack their belief systems, you are attacking them.

You might try the following exercise with a liberal who will actually talk to you, instead of  screaming ”bigot” or ”gun nut.”  Ask them to think about the right-wing politician that they hate the most.  Give them a minute to really feel their self-righteous anger.  Ask them to imagine the object of their animus as President of the US.  Then ask them the question, “Do you really want to ban guns in civilian hands and give that person a total monopoly on the use of armed force in our country?” 

You may then be able to talk about the dangers inherent in gun registration and how the Nazis used lists of previously registered firearms to disarm their political enemies, before exterminating them.  You might be able to plant a seed of doubt that could grow into a political awakening 

Read the book by Horowitz and Poe, The Shadow Party, (here and here) to find out how left-wing moneyed interests set up an interlocking network of non-profits and foundations to elect Hillary Clinton to the Presidency.  Enter Obama.  Hillary out.  Obama in.  Find out how he inherited a “turn-key” political operation that propelled him from obscurity to the White House.

What do we do?  How do we keep from becoming the “little men” described by Mayer, who were swept along in a destructive national socialist movement?  Do just one thing a day to promote freedom!

Promote the “New Media” to your friends and neighbors.  Fight the “Fairness Doctrine” and other Liberal schemes to limit free speech, such as the “Card Check” scam to end secret ballots in union elections.  Join pro-Second Amendment organizations.  Check New Media sources on a daily basis.  (You don’t have to worry about not getting the left-wing side of the news.  It’s almost impossible to escape it.)  Get politically active.  Join a major party.  Become a block worker or precinct leader.  Contact your state and federal elected representatives on issues related to freedom.  Write letters to editors.  Donate, campaign, and stay involved.  Support electable candidates.  Support the Second Amendment as though your life depended on it.  You know, it very well might.

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