THOUGHTS DURING THE GUN-CONTROL DEBATE: During my days doing investigative crime articles for Reader’s Digest, I had the (dubious) opportunity to saturate myself in case studies of various sociopaths and to read the studies of, and interview, a host of top experts on criminal psychology. After culling through all of it looking for answers as to why these people do what they do, I came to the conclusion that there are these universally present ingredients:

1. Low self-esteem, leading to a “social victim” self-image

2. Cultivating some excuse/rationale for violent retaliation against one’s “victimizers.” (These excuses can be simple and personal, or elaborate and even ideological.)

3. Constant “rehearsal,” through fantasy, about (re)gaining power and control in one’s life, through violence and “revenge.”

4. In cases of serial crimes, a pattern of escalating acts of violence against select targets. In cases of sudden mass murders, a long-fantasized, rehearsed, and planned quasi-”military” strike of “righteous slaughter” against anonymous representatives of the hated “society,” or against some symbolic target group of tormentors, often touched off by some kind of “last straw” insult or failure in the perp’s life.

You see these elements again and again and again. That’s how criminal profilers can so accurately draw up a predictive portrait of some unknown perpetrator in these crimes.

Guns are not the cause of any of this. They are just one means to nihilistic ends. The spree attacker who stabbed 14 people with an Exacto-knife this week says he had fantasized about doing that since the age of eight. Serial killers like Ted Bundy lived in a fantasy world of sadistic porn, their crimes escalated from “peeping Tom,” to stalking, to breaking-and-entering girls’ residences, to violent assaults — then to kidnapping, rape, torture, strangulation, etc., ad nauseum. Neither of these losers used guns.

If you study violent repeat criminals, you’ll find that they are constantly losing themselves in a mental universe of violent role-playing. And violent role-playing games are MUCH more realistic in depicting scenes of carnage and bloodshed — and in stimulating violent fantasies — than shooting at some bland paper target in the controlled environment of a firing range.

Focusing on gun control is entirely beside the point. If these creatures don’t have access to guns, they’ll find another brutal way to strike. Serial rapists and murderers rarely use guns; they prefer more “personal” means of hurting. The worst mass murder in an American school took place many decades ago; the perpetrator was a farmer who used three fertilizer-based bombs to slaughter scores of kids, teachers, and administrators. Ditto, the Oklahoma City bombers.

Feel-good gun-control measures, which only deprive law-abiding citizens of their right to self-defense, are futile, because nihilistic killers, by definition, will NEVER obey any laws, including gun laws. They’ll find other means — bombs, poison, knives, automobiles, airplanes, or simple arson — to slaughter others.

What parents, families, friends, and co-workers should focus on instead are tell-tale signs of any of the behavioral characteristics I mentioned above. Only a small minority of people who exhibit the first three characteristics will finally “act out” their fantasies; but all of those who DO take such violent actions exhibit those first three characteristics.

Sadly, a subjectivist, morally relativistic society where people have been taught that “anything goes” and that the highest value is attaining instant fame and “celebrity,” is a breeding ground for such creatures. And a host of “progressive” intellectuals are only too eager to offer deterministic excuses and legal defenses for them, enabling widespread sociopathic conduct. A society without moral moorings, that encourages and rewards narcissism, is not up to the task of minimizing sociopathy — which is only one step removed from narcissism.

- do hereby promise to do everything in our power, as your duly elected officials, to screw up as much as we can, as fast as we can and as thoroughly as we can.”

This would seem to be the oath of office that far too many of our politicians take as soon as they have the power of whatever office they are elected to. Obama for example has decided to ignore the 10th amendment, Bloomberg wants to limit the size of your soft drink and believes that “government knows best.” The number of instances that can be cited regarding this are too numerous to mention in this short post, but doesn’t it strike you as odd that our leaders have quit leading, and started dictating instead? Time to vote all of the bastards out and it doesn’t matter what party they belong to.

Can this be so if we idly sit by and let the politicians pass, or in some cases, fail to pass reasonable and appropriate legislation? We have the White House posturing with threats of doomsday with the sequestered monies that the White House insisted be sequestered. We have Congressional Democrats making dire predictions about how the Republicans want to shut down the entire economy, starve kids, and foster dirty air and water. We have Congressional Republicans agree to ongoing resolutions on the spending that they say are breaking the bank. Where the hell are the adults?

I’m growing more and more disillusioned with the lot of them. This is what I think needs to happen -

and soon.

“This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”

Don’t photoshop? Are you kidding me? Are you being serious? Really? Well, first thing I had to do was open up my Photoshop and I produced this little gem.

Others were soon to follow. Here are some of the better ones, and I’m sure that more are coming. Way to go WH, you really know how to tell us what to do don’t you?

At the protest, we should show up armed and in masks. Then, we should burn all records of firearms transactions. All receipts, federal forms, and all records should be destroyed.

It doesn’t specifically advocate violence, but it does suggest that all records should be destroyed. I know the author, and he certainly opposes violence — but he is not against violence in defense of ones self.

I do imagine if these were to happen, while it may be little more than a protest to most, to the government, this would be an open act of rebellion. Every last person to attend those events would be labelled as a “dangerous terrorist” and would clearly be subject to arrest for everything from “terrorizing the public” to “having a fire without a permit” to “disorderly conduct.” But at the same time, if there were hundreds of people in every town in America participating, I think the government would know they were in trouble. Oh, I don’t think for a minute they’d care, but they’d at least know…

“Credit for good deeds is often allocated improperly. Holocaust commemorators often honor the American soldiers who participated in the liberation of concentration or slave labor camps. Yet they frequently overlook the American Jewish chaplains who greatly assisted Holocaust survivors in the American zones of Germany and Austria at the end of the Second World War and the early years thereafter.

“Many Jewish chaplains acted courageously and charitably beyond their official tasks. Their primary function was to assist American soldiers in religious matters. There was even an order against fraternization in Germany with those living there. Some Jewish chaplains even took risks for survivors which could have gotten them court-martialed.”

Dr. Alex Grobman is Executive Director of the America-Israel Friendship League, Inc. in New York. One of his many books is” Rekindling the Flame: American Jewish Chaplains and the Survivors of European Jewry, 1944-1948″.

“Holocaust survivors in German camps presented unusual challenges for the Allied forces. The American military government wanted to help the Jewish Displaced Persons (DP’s), but had great difficulty in understanding their numerous problems. Jewish survivors not only needed material help, but also psychological and spiritual support. Conditions in most of their camps were deplorable.

“The army wished to repatriate all DP’s as soon as possible to the country they came from. However, of the more than 200,000 European Jews in Germany and Austria at the end of the war, many did not wish to return to the countries they had been deported from. Those who did faced danger, in particular in Poland and Lithuania.

“Many survivors who returned were frequently harassed. We do not know how many were killed. The most notorious pogrom was in July 1946, in which 47 Jews were murdered and more than 50 were wounded in Kielce, Poland. This made it clear why the majority of Polish Jews feared repatriation. Jews from Western Europe, Hungary, Romania, and Czechoslovakia were in a better position to reclaim their possessions and rebuild their lives.

“Jewish chaplains were among the first American Jews to meet Holocaust survivors. More than 90 of them had contact with DP’s from 1944-1948. They were not official representatives of any American Jewish organization. Many chaplains attempted to influence the military’s policies toward Jewish survivors. If they did not succeed, they often undertook various initiatives unilaterally. This sometimes meant risking their own careers, by engaging in covert actions to ease some of the traumas and dilemmas confronting Jewish survivors in Germany.

“Jewish chaplains helped survivors search for their families through illegal use of military mail; they rescued children hidden in churches and on farms; and they inspired American Jews to ship tons of food, clothing and basic necessities. They accompanied trains that transported Jewish children and adults out of Eastern Europe, and on youth transports to Palestine. A number worked with Brichah, the underground movement that smuggled Jews out of Europe and into Palestine. They also established schools, ritual baths and a summer camp. Several published educational material and functioned as rabbis of communities.

“One outstanding example was Chaplain Abraham Klausner, a reform rabbi. He tried to make the army acknowledge the uniqueness of the Jews’ situation. Klausner worked to solve immediate problems and needs, but also to have Jewish survivors recognized as a separate nationality. He helped establish Jewish “camps” to protect the survivors from frequent harassment by non-Jewish inmates. He assisted in creating an organization of survivors, the Central Committee of Liberated Jews in Bavaria, which represented their interests to the American military. Klausner was instrumental in establishing three Jewish hospitals where DP’s were treated by Jewish physicians. Simultaneously he attempted to alert American Jews to their plight.

“With the help of survivors, Klausner compiled and published six volumes containing systematic lists of survivors in Bavaria and distributed them throughout the world. This was the first major attempt to communicate with Jews in the West.

“With assistance from Max Braude, an Orthodox rabbi and Judah Nadich, a Conservative rabbi, Klausner was able to help survivors establish Unzer Weg. This became the largest Yiddish weekly in Germany and was viewed by many survivors as their national newspaper.

“Klausner saw that Jews in Dachau dressed in their camp uniforms and were still forced to live behind barbed wire. He thereupon wrote an unauthorized report about the state of Jewish survivors in Bavaria which created a stir in the American Jewish community. Klausner also played a key role in shaping the Harrison Report that established the position of adviser on Jewish affairs to the commander of the U.S. forces in Europe in August 1945, in response to the plight of Jewish DP’s.

“There was no difference in the extent of commitment between the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis. They all tried to show survivors that they were no longer alone. We owe these chaplains a tremendous debt of gratitude. Their many good deeds merit to be remembered.”

I am by no means a constitutional scholar, but I have read extensively and I think I have something to add to the discussion. And special thanks to Herschel Smith of Captain’s Journal for the impetus to this post.

A brief history Lesson:

“Anyone familiar with an accurate telling of the political truths leading up to the events of mid-April, 1775 in small towns and villages west of Boston knows that while the Colonials and their British masters were at loggerheads for the better part of a decade over a number of issues including taxation and liberty, the immediate and proximate trigger of the first American Revolutionary war was an attempt by General Thomas Gage to disarm the Colonists.” [Bob Owens, January 2013]

Indeed, the Battle of Concord was precisely held because of General Gage’s attempt to confiscate powder, ball and weapons to replenish what his men had consumed at the Battle of Lexington.

Following the Battle of Concord, General Percy, in charge of the British Soldiers at said battle wrote to General Gage:

In obedience to your Excellency’s orders, I marched yesterday morning at 9 o’clock with the 1st brigade and two field pieces in order to cover the retreat of the grenadiers and light infantry in their return from their expedition to Concord.

As all the houses were shut up, and there was not the appearance of a single inhabitant, I could get no intelligence concerning them till I had passed Menotomy when I was informed that the rebels had attacked his Majesty’s troops who were retiring, overpowered by numbers, greatly exhausted and fatigued, and having expended almost all their ammunition – and at about 2 o’clock I met them retiring rough the town of Lexington – I immediately ordered the 2 field pieces to fire at the rebels, and drew up the brigade on a height.

The shot from the cannon had the desired effect, and stopped the rebels for a little time, who immediately dispersed, and endeavored to surround us being very numerous. As it began now to grow pretty late and we had 15 miles to retire, and only 36 rounds, I ordered the grenadiers and light infantry to move of first; and covered them with my brigade sending out very strong flanking parties which were absolutely very necessary, as there was not a stone wall, or house, though before in appearance evacuated, from whence the rebels did not fire upon us. As soon as they saw us begin to retire, they pressed very much upon our rear guard, which for that reason, I relieved every now and then.

In this manner we retired for 15 miles under incessant fire all round us, till we arrived at Charlestown, between 7 and 8 in the evening and having expended almost all our ammunition. We had the misfortune of losing a good many men in the retreat, though nothing like the number which from many circumstances I have reason to believe were killed of the rebels. His Majesty’s troops during the whole of the affair behaved with their usual intrepidity and spirit nor were they a little exasperated at the cruelty and barbarity of the rebels, who scalped and cut off the ears of some of the wounded men who fell into their hands.

Thus began the experiment called the United States of America.

Surely, no one would state that the militia’s that stood up to the British were “A well regulated militia…” yet it is precisely because of these American stalwarts that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. Let’s take a close look at the Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Parsing this, one would think that in order to keep and bear arms, one must belong to a militia. Not so. It says, that the security of a free state is dependent on a well regulated militia, but the last phrase states clearly “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not say that the people must belong to a militia, but that they can be called on by the states to form a well regulated militia. Take a look at the First Amendment, it begins “Congress shall make no law…” you don’t see that in the Second, because the infringement caused by making such a law is forbidden and it is forbidden implicitly, as opposed to actually as in the First Amendment.

Leftish Daily Kos believes that ONLY those in a well regulated militia can keep and bear arms, bolstering his argument from part of the Federalist Papers #29 stating that the Union has the power:

“to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.”

What the author (CartoonDiablo) neglects to add is that Alexander Hamilton (the author of the paper in question) also stated:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

A far cry from “at all times” as Mr. CD would have you believe. “…in times of insurrection and invasion…” Hamilton goes on to say:

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?

Note: “Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?” It would seem that those who believe that ONLY those in well organized militia can own arms, are in fact afraid of and do not trust “…our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens.”

Yes, if you are 17 or older up to the age of about 40 you are a member of an unorganized militia, and many of you are in the National Guard, an organized militia. As Bob Owens notes:

The “National Guard and the Naval Militia” are one part of our Republic’s militia, formally identified in 10 USC § 311 (b) (1) as the “organized militia.”

You and I and others not formally part of the National Guard or Naval Militia or on active duty military are codified in 10 USC § 311 (b) (2) as the”unorganized militia.”

We are the militia.

Those of us between the ages of 17-45 are bound by law. Those of us below or older than that range are bound by duty, honor, heritage, loyalty and love. There is no middle ground, and few legitimate (mental and physical health, criminal history) excuses.

If the National Guard are today’s Minutemen, we are the larger backbone of that militia, drawn to serve our nation much as Jason Russell, Samuel Whittemore, David Lamson, Mother Batherick, and “death on a pale horse” himself, Hezekiah Wyman, were that first day patriotism called them to war to defend their families, communities, and way of life from those who would enslave them to a disconnected, arrogant tyrant.

This post has gotten longish. More will come in a few days. Thanks for reading.

Then there was all this talk about mental illness: if only our mental health system was better funded these wackos would get the help they needed, or get locked up before they acted out. What this indicates, to someone who has worked in the mental health profession for over 25 years, is a profound lack of insight and knowledge about the capabilities of such professionals to prognosticate whether an individual will commit an act of violence in the future, in the case of individuals who have no, or very little history of violence in their background. We don’t have a crystal ball into the future as part of our repertoire. What we can predict is the kind of violence perpetrated by repeat offenders, such as the street violence in Chicago or Oakland. But most anyone with half a brain can do that. With tougher laws and increased incarceration rates, violent crime has decreased in the nation as a whole, and places like Chicago and Washington, DC, with stricter than usual gun control laws, have fared far worse than average. But there is really no way to accurately predict the propensity for violence on the part of an individual with no criminal record or history of violence, mentally ill or not, short of an ability to read minds (remember: some people do have a tendency to tell lies).

My response to the Sandy Hook tragedy is for all Americans, particularly the political and pundit classes, to look in the mirror. Ask yourself whether or not America has become a more violent culture, and to what extent you may or may not be complicit. Most of the very same celebrities, who appeared in an infomercial advocating gun control following Sandy Hook, have made movies where violence is deemed the solution to all of life’s problems. One of the movies that I saw following Sandy Hook was Wanted (2008), with Angelina Jolie portraying a member of a team of assassins, who train an office boy, bored with his drab life (played by James McAvoy) to become one of the team. What a perfect metaphor for the young bullied nobody, who decides to take out his frustrations with life and become somebody famous by breaking a mass murder record. How inspiring! I heard someone say that we shouldn’t publicize the name of the perpetrator, and in a way that makes sense, because these mass shootings at schools and colleges have all the markings of a copy-cat crime. And guess what: schools and colleges are “gun-free zones,” in other words, a great place to target practice on innocent victims without the risk of getting shot back, at least for 20 or so minutes.

Movies, video games, American foreign policy, crime in the streets, all serve to make America a more violent country. Unfortunately, the only way to stop a bad guy or a whole bunch of bad guys with guns is with an armed citizenry and that thin blue line of law enforcement, or by extension to international relations, with a well-trained military. But ask yourself, why could farm boys in the early Twentieth Century bring their hunting rifles to school every day with few if any incidents of gun violence in that arena? When I went to high school in the early 1960s, there were fights and even occasional brawls after football games, but no gun violence. What’s changed? I’ll offer an opinion: What’s changed is that we’ve let the genii out of the bottle. There were good things that happened in the 1960s, like civil rights and more personal freedom, but there was also a surge of violence, drug use, and societal and familial breakdown. All natural and social restraints were set aside by many that included a majority of the agents of cultural transmission, i.e., movies, media, schools, and colleges. The mores and religious traditions of America’s past were cast aside like so much excess baggage. Heinous crimes, unheard of in earlier times, cascaded onto the national stage. What had been unthinkable before, beyond the frame of reference of the average American’s psyche, suddenly became permissible or at least thinkable. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, we had “defined deviancy down.” This is not to say that increased personal freedom is a bad thing, but any honest appraisal of the culture that emerged from the 1960s and 1970s would have to admit that it’s been a very mixed bag. Like so many things, to evaluate the consequences of freedom: it all depends upon what you do with it. Ironically, at the same time that Americans enjoyed more personal freedom, there was a decline in the mediating institutions of family, community, church, and neighborhood, and an exponential increase in the power of the state. Thus, every time the American psyche goes off kilter with outrage at the latest atrocious crime, the American people, led by their pundit class, scream for another law to “stop this outrageous violence.” But nothing really changes folks, because the last thing we want to do is look in the mirror and ask, what kind of culture have we bequeathed to our children? It’s so much easier to just pass another law.