Mass Shootings: The Military-Entertainment Complex’s Culture of Violence Turns Deadly

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

war money military industrial complex

“Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics. Violence runs through US society like an electric current offering instant pleasure from all cultural sources, whether it be the nightly news or a television series that glorifies serial killers.”—Professor Henry A. Giroux

This latest mass shooting in Las Vegas that left more than 50 people dead and more than 500 injured is as obscure as they come: a 64-year-old retiree with no apparent criminal history, no military training, and no obvious axe to grind opens fire on a country music concert crowd from a hotel room 32 floors up using a semi-automatic gun that may have been rigged to fire up to 700 rounds a minute, then kills himself.

We’re left with more questions than answers, none of them a flattering reflection of the nation’s values, political priorities, or the manner in which the military-industrial complex continues to dominate, dictate and shape almost every aspect of our lives.

For starters, why do these mass shootings keep happening? Mass shootings have taken place at churches, in nightclubs, on college campuses, on military bases, in elementary schools, in government offices, and at concerts. This shooting is the deadliest to date.

What is it about America that makes violence our nation’s calling card?

Is it because America is a gun culture (what professor Henry Giroux describes as “a culture soaked in blood – a culture that threatens everyone and extends from accidental deaths, suicides and domestic violence to mass shootings“)?

Is it because guns are so readily available? After all, the U.S. is home to more firearms than adults. As The Atlanticreports, gun fetishism has become mainstream in recent decades due in large part to “gun porn in music, movies, and TV, [and] the combination of weapons marketing and violent videogames.” (Curiously enough, the majority of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides, not homicides.)

Is it because entertainment violence is the hottest selling ticket at the box office? As Giroux points out, “Popular culture not only trades in violence as entertainment, but also it delivers violence to a society addicted to a pleasure principle steeped in graphic and extreme images of human suffering, mayhem and torture.”

Is it because the government continues to whet the nation’s appetite for violence and war through paid propaganda programs (seeded throughout sports entertainment, Hollywood blockbusters and video games)—what professor Roger Stahl refers to as “militainment“—that glorify the military and serve as recruiting tools for America’s expanding military empire?

Is it because Americans from a very young age are being groomed to enlist as foot soldiers—even virtual ones—in America’s Army (coincidentally, that’s also the name of a first person shooter video game produced by the military)? Explorer scouts are one of the most popular recruiting tools for the military and its civilian counterparts (law enforcement, Border Patrol, and the FBI).

Writing for The Atlantic, a former Explorer scout described the highlight of the program: monthly weekend maneuvers with the National Guard where scouts “got to fire live rounds from M16s, M60 machine guns, and M203 grenade launchers… we would have urban firefights (shooting blanks, of course) in Combat Town, a warren of concrete buildings designed for just that purpose. The exercise always devolved into a free-for-all, with all of us weekend warriors emptying clip after clip of blanks until we couldn’t see past the end of our rifles for all the smoke in the air.”

Is it because the United States is the number one consumer, exporter and perpetrator of violence and violent weapons in the world? Seriously, America spends more money on war than the combined military budgets of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil. America polices the globe, with 800 military bases and troops stationed in 160 countries. Moreover, the war hawks have turned the American homeland into a quasi-battlefield with military gear, weapons and tactics. In turn, domestic police forces have become roving extensions of the military—a standing army.

Or is the Second Amendment to blame, as many continue to suggest? Would there be fewer mass shootings if tighter gun control laws were enacted? Or would the violence simply take a different form: homemade bombs, cars driven into crowds, and knives (remember the knife assailant in Japan who stabbed 19 people to death at a care home for the disabled)?

Then again, could it be, as some have speculated, that these shootings are all part of an elaborate plan to incite fear and chaos, heighten national tensions and shift us that much closer to a complete lockdown? After all, the military and our militarized police forces have been predicting and preparing for exactly this kind of scenario for years now.

So who’s to blame for the violence?

This time, in Las Vegas, it was a seemingly nondescript American citizen pulling the trigger.

At other times, it’s organized crime syndicates or petty criminals or so-called terrorists/extremists.

Still other times, it’s the police with their shoot first, ask questions later mindset (more than 900,000 law enforcement officers are armed).

In certain parts of the Middle East, it’s the U.S. government and the military carrying out drone strikes and bombing campaigns that leave innocent civilians dead and their communities torn apart.

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

We’re caught in a vicious cycle with no end in sight.

Perhaps there’s no single one factor to blame for this gun violence. However, there is a common denominator, and that is a war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military industrial complex that has invaded almost every aspect of our lives.

Ask yourself: Who are these shooters modelling themselves after? Where are they finding the inspiration for their weaponry and tactics? Whose stance and techniques are they mirroring?

In almost every instance, you can connect the dots back to the military.

We are a military culture.

We have been a nation at war for most of our existence.

We are a nation that makes a living from killing through defense contracts, weapons manufacturing and endless wars.

In order to sustain the nation’s appetite for war over the long haul in spite of the costs of war in lives lost and dollars spent—and little else to show for it—the military has had to work overtime to churn out pro-war, pro-military propaganda. It’s exactly what President Eisenhower warned against (“the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex”) in his 1961 farewell address.

We didn’t listen then and we’re still not listening now.

All the while, the government’s war propaganda machine has grown more sophisticated and entrenched in American culture.

Back when I was a boy growing up in the 1950s, almost every classic sci fi movie ended with the heroic American military saving the day, whether it was battle tanks in Invaders from Mars (1953) or military roadblocks in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). What I didn’t know then as a schoolboy was the extent to which the Pentagon was paying to be cast as America’s savior.

By the time my own kids were growing up, it was Jerry Bruckheimer’s blockbuster film Top Guncreated with Pentagon assistance and equipment—that boosted civic pride in the military.

Now it’s my grandkids’ turn to be awed and overwhelmed by child-focused military propaganda in the X-Men movies. Same goes for The Avengers and Superman and the Transformers. (Don’t even get me started on the war propaganda churned out by the toymakers.)

All of the military equipment featured in blockbuster movies is provided—at taxpayer expense—in exchange for carefully placed promotional spots aimed at indoctrinating the American populace into believing that patriotism means throwing their support behind the military wholeheartedly and unquestioningly.

Even reality TV shows have gotten in on the gig, with the Pentagon’s entertainment office influencing “American Idol,” “The X-Factor,” “Masterchef,” “Cupcake Wars,” numerous Oprah Winfrey shows, “Ice Road Truckers,” “Battlefield Priests,” “America’s Got Talent,” “Hawaii Five-O,” lots of BBC, History Channel and National Geographic documentaries, “War Dogs,” and “Big Kitchens.” And that’s just a sampling.

It’s estimated that U.S. military intelligence agencies (including the NSA) have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows.

And then there are the growing number of video games, a number of which are engineered by or created for the military, which have accustomed players to interactive war play through military simulations and first-person shooter scenarios.

This is how you acclimate a population to war.

This is how you cultivate loyalty to a war machine.

This is how, to borrow from the subtitle to the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, you teach a nation to “stop worrying and love the bomb.”

As journalist David Sirota writes for Salon, “[C]ollusion between the military and Hollywood – including allowing Pentagon officials to line edit scripts – is once again on the rise, with new television programs and movies slated to celebrate the Navy SEALs….major Hollywood directors remain more than happy to ideologically slant their films in precisely the pro-war, pro-militarist direction that the Pentagon demands in exchange for taxpayer-subsidized access to military hardware.”

Why is the Pentagon (and the CIA and the government at large) so focused on using Hollywood as a propaganda machine?

To those who profit from war, it is—as Sirota recognizes—”a ‘product’ to be sold via pop culture products that sanitize war and, in the process, boost recruitment numbers….At a time when more and more Americans are questioning the fundamental tenets of militarism (i.e., budget-busting defense expenditures, never-ending wars/occupations, etc.), military officials are desperate to turn the public opinion tide back in a pro-militarist direction — and they know pop culture is the most effective tool to achieve that goal.”

The media, eager to score higher ratings, has been equally complicit in making (real) war more palatable to the public by packaging it as TV friendly.

This is what Dr. Stahl refers to as the representation of a “clean war“: a war “without victims, without bodies, and without suffering”:

‘Dehumanize destruction’ by extracting all human imagery from target areas … The language used to describe the clean war is as antiseptic as the pictures. Bombings are ‘air strikes.’ A future bombsite is a ‘target of opportunity.’ Unarmed areas are ‘soft targets.’ Civilians are ‘collateral damage.’ Destruction is always ‘surgical.’ By and large, the clean war wiped the humanity of civilians from the screen … Create conditions by which war appears short, abstract, sanitized and even aesthetically beautiful. Minimize any sense of death: of soldiers or civilians.”

This is how you sell war to a populace that may have grown weary of endless wars: sanitize the war coverage of anything graphic or discomfiting (present a clean war), gloss over the actual numbers of soldiers and civilians killed (human cost), cast the business of killing humans in a more abstract, palatable fashion (such as a hunt), demonize one’s opponents, and make the weapons of war a source of wonder and delight.

“This obsession with weapons of war has a name: technofetishism,” explains Stahl. “Weapons appear to take on a magical aura. They become centerpieces in a cult of worship.”

“Apart from gazing at the majesty of these bombs, we were also invited to step inside these high-tech machines and take them for a spin,” said Stahl. “Or if we have the means, we can purchase one of the military vehicles on the consumer market. Not only are we invited to fantasize about being in the driver’s seat, we are routinely invited to peer through the crosshairs too. These repeated modes of imaging war cultivate new modes of perception, new relationships to the tools of state violence. In other words, we become accustomed to ‘seeing’ through the machines of war.”

In order to sell war, you have to feed the public’s appetite for entertainment.

Not satisfied with peddling its war propaganda through Hollywood, reality TV shows and embedded journalists whose reports came across as glorified promotional ads for the military, the Pentagon turned to sports to further advance its agenda, “tying the symbols of sports with the symbols of war.”

The military has been firmly entrenched in the nation’s sports spectacles ever since, having co-opted football, basketball, even NASCAR.

Remember, just before this Vegas shooting gave the media, the politicians and the easily distracted public something new to obsess over, the headlines were dominated by President Trump’s feud with the NFL over players kneeling during the national anthem.

That, too, was yet another example of how much the military entertainment complex—which paid $53 million of taxpayer money between 2012 and 2015 to pro sports teams for military tributes (on-field events recognizing military service members, including ceremonial first pitches, honor guards and Jumbotron tributes)—has infiltrated American culture.

This Trump-NFL feud is also a classic example of how to squash dissent—whether it’s dissent over police brutality or America’s killing fields abroad. As Stahl explains, “Supporting the troops is made synonymous with supporting the war. Those who disagree with the decision to send soldiers to war are thus identified with the enemy. This is done through a variety of associations… Dissent becomes synonymous with criminal activity.”

When you talk about the Las Vegas mass shooting, you’re not dealing with a single shooter scenario. Rather, you’re dealing with a sophisticated, far-reaching war machine that has woven itself into the very fabric of this nation.

As Stahl concludes, “War has come to look very much like a video game. As viewers of the TV war, we are treated to endless flyovers. We are immersed in a general spirit of play. We are shown countless computer animations that contribute a sense of virtuality. We play alongside news anchors who watch on their monitors. We sit in front of the crosshairs directing missiles with a sense of interactivity. The destruction, if shown at all, seems unreal, distant. These repeated images foster habitual fantasies of crossing over.”

You want to stop the gun violence?

Stop the worship of violence that permeates our culture.

Stop glorifying the military industrial complex with flyovers and salutes during sports spectacles.

Stop acting as if there is anything patriotic about military exercises and occupations that bomb hospitals and schools.

Stop treating guns and war as entertainment fodder in movies, music, video games, toys, amusement parks, reality TV and more.

Stop distribution weapons of war to the local police and turning them into extensions of the military—weapons that have no business being anywhere but on a battlefield.

Most of all, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, stop falling for the military industrial complex’s psychological war games.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by John W. Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute.

Since 1996, John W. Whitehead has taken on everything from human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, protection of religious freedom, and child pornography, to family autonomy issues, cross burning, the sanctity of human life, and the war on terrorism in his weekly opinion column. A self-proclaimed civil libertarian, Whitehead is considered by many to be a legal, political and cultural watchdog—sounding the call for integrity, accountability and an adherence to the democratic principles on which this country was founded.

Time and again, Whitehead hits the bull’s eye with commentaries that are insightful, relevant and provocative. And all too often, he finds himself under fire for his frank and unadulterated viewpoint. But as he frequently remarks, “Anytime people find themselves under fire from both the liberal left and the conservative right, it means that that person is probably right on target.”

Mr. Whitehead’s commentaries have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times and USA Today.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    When a free society can be desensitized to violence while still being able to abhor it, you will be able to personify an identifiable person/group to blame. Once enough “blame” has accrued from contrived acts of violence, the desensitization comes into play. The desensitized masses will sanction their government to utilize violence against the blamed group for the purpose of achieving “security”, securing peace and promoting overall societal harmony. In the not too distant future, that blamed group will be anyone who supports the literal interpretation of The Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. Constitutionalists are being boxed in and put in the crosshairs.

    • SP_88

      Then the people who hate guns so much can have government thugs armed with guns come and shoot all the people who love their country.
      It’s not bad enough that more often than not, we end up being the victims of leftist nut jobs with guns. We have to constantly defend our rights from them because of their fuck-nuttery.

  • Linda Lee

    And who glorified war and mayhem? THE MOVIE INDUSTRY. Do not blame this on the military. Not one family member of mine who has been to war has ever come
    back and said what a glorious thing war is.

  • Gil G

    Grasping at any diversion to save the 2A, eh?

    • SP_88

      Save it from what? And if it goes away, what will it be replaced by? Where will our personal security come from? The police? Ha. Not likely. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
      And what will guarantee the rest of our rights? The good will and upstanding morals of our government? You are more than welcome to put your faith in government. But I’m not. And neither will a majority of other Americans.
      In fact, right now not even leftists trust the government. It’s funny how we were paranoid gun nuts when we didn’t trust the government under the Obama regime, but now that Trump is president, it’s ok to not trust the government.
      The second amendment isn’t going anywhere. No need for a distraction.
      I don’t know why you people think that getting rid of guns and the second amendment will somehow stop gun violence and mass shootings. It didn’t work anywhere else, why on earth would you think it would work here?
      Remember in France, where gun ownership is not protected by law or a Constitution, yet they had a mass shooting that killed 128 people, double the amount in Las Vegas. And their gun control laws are much more strict than ours.
      And they are hardly the only example.
      Despite the fact that America has the highest gun ownership rate per capita, it is other countries with much more strict gun control laws that have the record for deadliest mass shootings.
      There are a hundred other countries with higher murder rates than America. And if it wasn’t for these leftist run cesspools like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc, America would actually have a very low murder rate.
      It really sucks when the facts don’t paint the picture you were hoping for, doesn’t it?

      • Gil G

        Garbage. End the notion the average person can arm up themselves up as an individual instead being part of a recognized militia.

        • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

          So you’re actually trying to sell the idea that within The Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, unlike the others, is the only one not an individual right?!
          “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
          – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
          “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
          “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
          “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
          “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
          “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
          “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
          “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
          “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
          – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
          “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
          – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
          “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
          – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
          “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
          – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
          “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
          – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
          “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
          – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
          “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
          – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
          “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
          – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
          The Founders made it clear what they felt and meant about the Second Amendment. You may find comfort in being an acquiescent subject, content to supplicate before your supposedly benevolent masters, but have no fear. There are real men in this country who will risk their very own lives to ensure that even a dirty kneed fucktard such as yourself will still have a Second Amendment to pass along to your heirs.

          • Gil G

            Strange how gun nuts conflate mass shootings with self-defense.

          • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

            Oh-you mean like how gun grabbing, boot licking peasants who worship the state conflate mass shootings with fundamental rights? Each and every quote above was uttered by one of the Founders themselves or those who had a clear understanding of the intent of The Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular. That’s not conflating-that’s a rebuttal of your fucktard opinion coming directly from the foremost experts on the subject. I will gladly provide further rebuttal if you wish-there’s plenty more where those came from. A portrait of liberty for free people will look no different now, or in the future, than it looked in 1788. Idiots like you, who choose to ignore the weight of history and seek to revise the meaning of these great historical documents, will come crawling on your knees and begging for aid when you find you no longer enjoy their protections. I will be the first to turn my back on you.

          • Gil G

            The Revolution was won with an army under George Washington – not a bunch of hick farmers with guns.

          • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

            This attempt of yours at reasoning is just one of many places your tired, old rhetoric jumps the tracks. All armies come from somewhere and frequently draw from the lowest within any given societies social order, including “hick” farmers. Would you suppose that a future revolution would consist only of “hick” farmers? Or do you suppose that an alarmingly high number of police, current, as well as former military veterans would also bolster their ranks? You know-people who could lead, train, organize and discipline “ordinary” folk. Train them in weapons proficiency, fire and maneuver, fire discipline, basic demolitions, asymmetrical warfare and coordination of assets. Just for starters. Don’t think for one minute that demolitions, booby traps and other means of waging war, made from accumulated, ordinary household items, can’t and wouldn’t be employed by a bunch of “hick” farmers. Or, in your fantasy scenario, would all of these people bend the knee and submit to the government’s will?
            Your dismissal and condescension of people you know nothing of, don’t care to know, and believe yourself to be superior to is one of the ugliest parts of the progressive movement. Your worship of an all powerful government whose purpose is to wield it’s power over The People, is even uglier.

          • Gil G

            You contradict yourself – anyone can enlist in the army and get training. This is different from the romance of anyone with a gun is somehow qualified to be a soldier.

          • Gil G

            Conservatives confuse Mel Gibson movies with actual history:


          • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

            And? The militia did not have a population full of professionally trained, ex soldiers and paramilitary trained police at their disposal either. Something our never ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have seeded our population with. There has probably never been a civil population with so many former military members. Further, you don’t appear to even entertain the virtual certainty that a significant portion of the existing military would side with The People. The times are different-there are more available resources for the “hick farmers” to draw from than those of the past.

          • Gil G

            Nope. as the militia have been called by the government to suppress the people such as strikes. After all, one of the duty of the militia is suppress insurrections, i.e. people trying to take down the government.

          • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

            And where do you find that duty spelled out in the Constitution? How militias have been used and whether that use was Constitutional are mutually exclusive issues. Nowhere in The Constitution does it even suggest what you say. The very notion that The Constitution was, in any way, written in order to protect the government from The People, rather than the other way around, is horseshit-plain and simple. Your premise flies directly in the face of the spirit in which it was written and is patently indefensible. Why can’t you just admit you’d rather spend your life sucking government cock rather than actually possessing and utilizing self determination?

          • SP_88

            If there was an insurrection, and they were trying to take out the government, the militia could certainly be called to defend the government from it.
            But that is far from their only purpose. The militia could also be used to take down the government if it became necessary. The militia is the people. It is formed by armed individuals, and it’s there to defend the people and their liberty and the Constitution, the ideas contained within it, not the document itself.
            Your attempts to make the second amendment into something it is not are misinformed and disingenuous. The second amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, is based on the individual rights of all people, not the government, and not some group of people.
            To suggest that the second amendment only applies to a militia is a gross distortion of the facts. And regardless of whether you believe it is possible for the people to successfully defend themselves against a tyrannical government, it is entirely irrelevant to the very clear meaning of the second amendment.

        • SP_88

          A recognized militia IS made up of people who are individually armed. You just don’t get it, do you? No matter how you look at it, the Constitution is based entirely on individual rights. Every right is an individual right.
          A militia cannot exist unless there are individuals with their own firearms who are able to show up when called upon.
          If we were to somehow create legislation that required individuals to keep their firearms somewhere where the government had possession of them until they were needed, it would completely defeat the purpose of the second amendment.
          It is exactly the purpose of the second amendment to keep our firearms out of the reach of the government.
          And what do you hope to accomplish by taking away the right of the people to own firearms? Do you honestly believe that this will stop crime? Or reduce mass shootings? Or make people safer?
          Or is this just some malicious agenda to satisfy your hatred of firearms?
          Because words on paper are never going to stop people are intent on killing innocent people. Whether it’s a gun free zone sign on the wall, or some convoluted legislation written in a book, it is a proven fact that criminals do not follow the law, and none of these laws or signs have had any positive impact whatsoever. Not in America, and not in Europe or Australia or anywhere else.
          The target of these gun control laws is always the law abiding citizen who is no danger to anyone. These laws are always written to effect gun sales and legal gun possession, magazine capacity, and cosmetic accessories that have no effect on the operation of the firearm.
          These laws are written by no-nothing politicians who are writing laws that effect something that they have zero knowledge of. And it’s ridiculous to allow this to continue.
          You have to admit that the things some of these politicians have said is totally ridiculous, and proves beyond all doubt that they are absolutely ignorant of the subject.

  • alohajim

    How did this great country of ours devolve into a morass of warfare and welfare with a citizenship so dumbed down, distracted, and divided? What unseen force so tightly coalesces academia and the entertainment and political systems to produce such an aberration? Why is this purposeful devolution of humanity not acknowledged and widely opposed?

    Why do banks have the sole ‘right’ to create currencies from nothing and are allowed to buy real world assets with them? Why is every bank loan a clear breach of contract law (it costs a bank nothing to create currencies and thus they are providing no value whatsoever to any contract) yet demand and legally confiscate real assets as ‘collateral ‘?

    There are answers to these questions but you won’t find them in schools, MSM, or in any government publication. Neither will you ever hear them from our ‘leaders’, ‘authorities’, or ‘experts’.

  • Steven Coy