Conspiracy Cults; Getting What's Coming to Them?

This is for Steven Vandervelde who, in his infinite wisdom, decided to unfriend me in the middle of a conversation on his wall (conversation appended) I was in the middle of real life, of watching movies with family, when this conversation started.

I should have resisted commenting on his post (that was how I started the comment I had to abandon because of his actions) I have no fondness for trolls, and despise myself when I catch myself trolling. Still, I have to wonder if the conspiracy theorists (see appended conversation) understand just how nutty their words appear, when seen from outside the realm of the conspiracy initiated; the people who simply "know" that the forces of government are arrayed against them. In yet another example of my inability to keep myself from arguing with the terrified weapons holder (a phrase that should give anyone pause) I attempted to explain that it was completely rational to limit weapons to people who are trained and licensed to use and carry firearms. That there is no conspiracy at the UN to steal all our guns.

The UN exists exactly as I described; it was created specifically to echo the will of the victors in World War Two, it does what we (our government) tells it to. Everyone who isn't part of the conspiracy knows this. No one is proposing that you should not be allowed to defend yourself. Even if they were, such a proposal would contravene centuries of US law and the founding documents of the government of the United States; not to mention the most recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570) which has reversed the presumption that you could render the population of the US defenseless, legally.

Can Not Be Done. Not without changing the precedent, something that is quite rare. Let that sink in for a moment.

Before I leave this subject, I'd like to highlight another point. Recently the world was treated to a breath of fresh air commonly referred to as the Arab Spring. Third World regions such as the Middle East (my apologies to anyone who takes offense to this characterization) are historically the most despotic. They have some of the worst records on human rights, freedoms; and most importantly gun ownership. Yet these people, officially unarmed by law, managed to overthrow several governments and change the course of the region, politically.  What does that mean when it comes to the necessity of arms and the need to make government responsive to the people? For me, it embroiders an opinion that I've long held; that revolution need not be violent in order to be effective.

The US is obsessed with guns. We have been since Lexington and Concord. In the 1700's, it was necessary to hold arms in order to be able to effect change. This adage was observed and utilized through numerous generations, and taken to heart by several successful dictators of the recent past, which the gunnuts (a term I use with the greatest of sympathy) have enumerated ad nauseum during the current debate about guns. But that doesn't mean that guns are ultimately of any use to those who hold them.  It bears noting that Adam Lanza's mother (who purchased the guns he used in his mass shooting) ultimately disapproved of the use he put her guns too after he killed her with them.

...and that really is the question before us. The people who are opposed to this discussion on the basis of the discussion itself want to frame the question completely differently; but the real question remains, "can we limit access to weapons and yet retain our ability to defend ourselves?" Experience and history seem to indicate that this is a viable possibility, despite the (nearly) insane rants of those who would have you believe that if the government keeps you from purchasing and owning an Abrams tank, they are restricting your right to defend yourself. That conversation continues, in spite of the insanity.

There is something about the arguments of the conspiracy minded, though, that inspired this entire rant. The paranoid, like a broken clock, is right at least once a day (twice a 24 hour cycle) and the paranoid among us are already onto the weapon that will be used against them.

It's been suggested in a few of the previous conversations I've had on this subject, that the government was going to restrict access to weapons based on a judgement of sanity; that they would deem us all insane and thereby take away all our guns. I'll give them partial credit here.  There are people who have guns today who are (to establish a clinical judgment) completely nuts. Those people really shouldn't have weapons, and I hereby approve of the government taking their weapons away from them, in furtherance of the safety of the rest of us.

You know who you are.

The rest of us, those of us who are quite sane, should probably welcome a discussion of what measures should be taken to limit access to weapons. After all, we've seen more mass shootings in the last few years than we've seen previously in history; if that knowledge doesn't give us pause, then I guess it's time to go buy those Bushmaster's with 30 round clips, as well as the fallout shelters, a year's worth of dry goods, a water purification plant and a good solar power system. Too bad there aren't enough electric cars available on the market to make a 'self-sufficient' system truly viable (the operation of a refinery being beyond the ability of a small group of determined individuals) much less there being no real investments to hold all those fake dollars we invented over the last few decades...

...But please, don't let me dissuade you.  They are coming for your guns. Go run and hide. We'll let you know when it's safe to come out.



Steven Vandervelde shared L Neil Smith's photo.

[Just say "NO" image removed by Facebook poster]

To Obama, Feinstein, Biden, Schumer, Reid, McCarthy, DeGette, and the rest of weird, sick, criminal anti-gun fetishests ...
  • R. Anthony Steele I am saying no. To the weapons merchants, the profiteers, and their defenders in government. 
  • L Neil Smith Anthony, were you _born_ a useful idiot, or did you have to take lessons? Go read some history. Victim disarmament is the all-important prelude to genocide -- in this case democide. Go look at Agenda 21 and see what this government and the UN have in mind for you. 9/10 of the human population must die, in their view, the view of every top-level gun-grabber in the world, to save their lovely Mother Gaia.
  • R. Anthony Steele I chose not to drink the conspiracy kool aid that appears to have infected the balance of libertarian thought.
  • L Neil Smith American Independence was the result of a conspiracy. So was the Federal Reserve System and the income tax. Look up "Jekyll Island". Not to mention the Manhattan Project. Or the dirty tricks that kept Ron Paul off the ballot. Are you ignorant of what Obama's death squads are starting to do? Better look that up, too. Holding your nose loftily in the air only make it easier for the badguys to cut your throat.

    And you never answered my question
  • R. Anthony Steele I did answer your question. The fact is the UN does what we want it to do; it was designed that way. If you don't understand that basic fact, there's no point in addressing the various other fallacies involved in the conspiracy theories you allude to.
  • Steven Vandervelde R. Anthony Steele, if you actually had a point you certainly failed to make it, minus the ad hominem attack. Are you really that incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion? Are we to suppose that you don't support the right to self defense? Why do you call yourself a libertarian?
[I don't. Not anymore. Not a libertarian. Self defense? Self defense does not guarantee you a firearm, or else you'd emerge from the womb clutching one.]
  • L Neil Smith I deal with them every day. Usually they're cowards who simply don't want to think about the murder and mayhem going on all around them. Or they're too lazy to take charge of their own lives, which includes pulling their heads out and looking around. Natural-born Tories. Imagine one of them calling himself a libertarian!

    Wonder what this guy is going to tell himself when Obama's death squads become commoin knowledge.
[Again I repeat; Not a libertarian. Also, gotta love the total lack of ad hom's in their replies. So much more directly argumentative than my comments, not attacking the person at all. I really should try to emulate them I guess. Also, I've noticed a distinct lack of death squads since this back and forth occurred. Still waiting for them to appear.]
  • L Neil Smith Anthony, I'm not sure I'd use the word "we" as promiscuously as you do. I agree that the evil fascist sum presently troubling us is widely distributed. I can't tell which end is the dog and which end is the tail. The UN and the US government both approve Agenda 21. I'm not a part of the "we", are you? I've written of UN officials and presidential advisers who agree that 9/10 of the population must be gotten rid of. I'm not a part of that "we', either, are you?

    I know that this is painful -- it was for me -- but get it through your head: you don't live in Disneyland any more. You never did. The only way we're gonna have the America we thought we had is to_make_ it, starting now.

    Oh, and I don't drink Kool-Ade. I drink Jameson's.



I drink Kelt, myself.

What alcohol preference has to do with a known cult reference is a matter of conjecture. I don't think we should casually joke about the insanity of believing everyone is capable of handling firearms responsibly.  That they can and do hold these beliefs without question is one of the hallmarks of cult-like thought.

Oh, and Agenda 21?  Another baseless conspiracy theory.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Ad Hominems, Spam and Advertisements will be mercilessly deleted. All other comments are eagerly anticipated.