Retard Control, Not Gun Control

RetardControlNotGunControl   <– PDF version

We have now just passed one of the darkest Christmas seasons in memory, after so many small children were murdered by a clinical retard at an elementary school in Newtown, CT.  The tiny bodies were not even cold when our Marxist politicians, ever alert to exploit a tragedy, took to the airwaves to demand that all the other citizens give up their Second Amendment rights because of the action of a single retard.  President Obama has since commissioned a task force to develop new and innovative ways to disarm the people; their report is due sometime in Jan 2013.

When I use the word “retard”, I am not referring to those who have below-average IQ; I am referring to those who have been recognized as clinically insane by competent mental health authorities – the people that pose a clear danger to themselves and others.

Most of the recent mass shooters, including Retard Jared Loughner of Tuscon AZ fame, Retard James Holmes of Aurora CO fame, and the latest one, Retard Adam Lanza of Newtown CT fame, were all profoundly mentally ill.  In fact, the Christmas Eve shooter of Webster NY, Retard William Spengler, had previously served 17 years in prison for murdering his grandmother.  All were known to be retards by the local health officials — why was nothing done to intervene?  Is this how our illustrious government seeks to protect us — by failing in its duty while taking away the rights of the people?

I suspect that the government prefers to let these retards walk free until they commit some horrific crime; it keeps the rest of the people nervous and fearful.  History shows that people who are afraid are more willing to give up their liberties if they can be convinced that doing so will ensure their safety.  What better way for the politicians and the bureaucrats to kill two birds with one stone: implement some gun control to reduce the Second Amendment guarantee while assuring the weak-minded that we will have a safer nation because of it?  It is typical for that type of politician, already suitably divorced from reality, to actually believe they can eliminate evil by passing laws to regulate inanimate objects.  The real problem, as far as these shootings are concerned, is that we no longer have a viable mechanism to commit these retards to institutions, where they can either be treated as they require by expert medical practitioners and restored to mental health, or comforted and cared for in a place where they can only hurt each other.  It is unfortunate that some will fall into the latter category; but that is how it is.  Or maybe our illustrious politicians would prefer small children being killed in their schools by retards on the loose, either by shooting, by burning the building down, or running them down with a pickup truck.

The National Rifle Association released a statement recommending, among other things, that perhaps instead of giving up liberty, we should have armed guards in the schools.  I am not convinced that it is the ultimate answer, but suffice to say that our Marxist politicians immediately rejected the idea and castigated the NRA for being “tone deaf”.  The mainstream media of course neglected to mention that there are about 130,000 elementary and high schools in America and about a third of them have had armed guards for decades.  They will never mention it; doing so would only remind the voters that armed guards in the public schools are necessary only in cities where the Democratic Party has established their brand of paradise: Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, Baltimore, Washington DC, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Gary, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, and St. Louis.  It is odd indeed that the Marxist politicians would criticize the NRA for recommending something that the Democrats have been doing for decades.  But this omission makes perfect sense when you recall that the goal is not public safety — if it were, we would be committing dangerous retards to institutions where they belong.  The goal is to disarm the people.

It is not just the opportunistic politicians joining the gun-control/disarmament bandwagon.  Now Dr. Fareed Zakaria (commentator for CNN and political advisor to Mr. Obama) also desires to solve the retard problem by essentially killing off the Second Amendment.  In his 23 Dec 2012 article [1], Evidence Overwhelming: Loose Guns Laws to Blame, Dr. Zakaria cites reductions in homicides in other nations after gun prohibition, ridicules existing gun laws in the U. S. as being too lenient, then concludes: “Instead, why not have the government do something much simpler and that has proved successful: limit access to guns.”  He is referring, as stated earlier in the column, to banning all semi-automatic and automatic firearms, as was done in Great Britain, Japan, and Australia.  That brings up an important topic.  Dr. Zakaria is a native of India; India has draconian gun prohibition laws which are a holdover from the British colonial regime.  If India is such a free and safe society, why did Dr. Zakaria emigrate to the U. S., so full of gun owners?   He must have thought there was greater freedom here.  He was right.  What he fails to realize is that freedom exists here but not in India partly because the people are armed.  As the famous Indian activist Mahatma Ghandi wrote [2]:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

Apparently Dr. Zakaria disagrees with Mr. Ghandi and would like to turn the American people into the suppressed subjects that the Indian people were when ruled by Her Majesty Queen Victoria.  If His Lordship Viceroy and Governor-General Dr. Zakaria won’t believe Mr. Ghandi, perhaps he will believe a leader of his adopted nation, Senator (later Vice President) Hubert H. Humphrey [3]:

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.  This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced.  But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote inAmerica, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

This is the basic fact that His Lord Highness Fareed and other like-minded Marxists deliberately ignore, hoping you will not notice.  Only an armed population has a reasonable chance of remaining free, given the usual long-term trend of every government toward absolute power.  This pattern is true throughout history, no matter the form or construction of the government.  We shall see in the coming weeks ever more shrill demands by the Marxist element for you, the citizen, to give up your right to be armed; which is in essence, a demand that you give up your long-term prospects for freedom.  We shall see who in Washington, if any, are willing to oppose them.

The best answer to the random shootings is retard control, not gun control.  If and when the government finds a backbone and takes action to ensure that retards are placed in their proper environment (where they can get real treatment), we will have fewer tragedies like the Newtown incident.

I shall consider in subsequent essays some other practical considerations regarding “gun controls”.

[1]  The Arizona Republic, 23 Dec 2012, p. B10

[2]  Cited by Abhijeet Singh, “Colonial Roots of Gun Control”, Mahatma Ghandi, An Autobiography OR The Story of My Experiments With Truth, p. 238;  http://abhijeetsingh.com

[3]  Guns magazine, Feb 1960, p. 4; http://commongunsense.net/2011/01/hubert-humphrey-in-1960/

 

Comments are closed.