“Politics and the English Language,” “is designed to make lies sound
truthful and murder respectable.” ~ George Orwell in his 1946 essay
Our government has a very firm understanding of the importance of language
in a bill's name. In our sound-byte culture, if you can win the approval of the
public with a catchy, emotional title, the substance of the bill will undergo
very little scrutiny. Misnomers are regularly applied to atrocious legislation
and this goes almost entirely unchallenged. My favorite is the "Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing the Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act. What a profound coincidence that
this just so happens to spell out USA PATRIOT Act. This bill, like most
controversial ones, was not only misnamed, but also introduced moments before
the vote on its passage, making it impossible for representatives to read, let
alone debate, the content of the bill. Turns out, a more appropriate name would
have been "Repeal the Fourth Amendment Act"...more accurate but not
as catchy. In addition to the widely known effects on privacy rights, this bill
also expands the definition of "terrorist" to include basically protesters
who attempt to influence government policy, i.e., most protesters. [
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism
] This tactic is used in countless bills and has been picked up by the lap-dog
media to shape the scope of language and debate in all aspects of society. This
has been so commonplace that it would require the likes of a PhD dissertation
to do anything more than scratch the surface.
MANIPULATION OF LANGUAGE
This Orwellian tactic has deep roots. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was
carefully worded. People of that day had a healthy skepticism of central banks
so the framers were careful to avoid using the word "bank" anywhere
near their legislation and subsequent central banking system. The Federal
Reserve is neither Federal (it’s owned and operated by private banks) nor is it
a reserve (it has nothing on reserve and "prints" or conjures up what
money it uses). I personally would have named it ‘The Monopoly on Money
Creation and Debt Enslavement Act’.
This banking cartel got one of its most ostentatious handouts with the
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Using a word like "troubled"
hearkens to a misbehaving adolescent. Others have used the word
"toxic" to refer to these same "assets" which is slightly
more sincere but still misses the point. These were not really assets at all, they
were designed to fail. The designers placed bets counting on this failure. The
assets fail and the bankers collect. The bailout, "TARP", brought no
"relief" to those who lost out on these transactions, just more
windfall profits for the mega wealthy. Don’t forget this measure was passed
even though about 85% of the public opposed it. So much for democracy! We were
told that we were too dumb to understand the economy, we needed these wise,
benevolent politicians to give us our bitter medicine, they know what’s best.
This would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
The National Defense Authorization Act is a routine piece of legislation
that permits funding of the military. I take serious issue with the idea that
funding unprovoked wars of aggression all over the world has anything to do
with national defense though the language is not my focus on this bill. This is
a case of sneaking unpopular measures into routine bills, another popular form
of deception. The 2012 version of this act contained "indefinite detention"
provisions. These provisions allow for the indefinite detention of American
citizens, on American soil, without charges or trial. The only justification
necessary is that the government SUSPECTS that you might be a terrorist, or
belong to "associated forces", or that you have provided
"material support" to those forces. As we have seen, this includes
peaceful protesters in America. We have also seen that being suspected of
terrorism justifies "enhanced interrogation" better known as torture.
Prominent journalists including Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky
have filed a class-action lawsuit against the federal government. They believe
that, as journalists, they may easily run afoul of this law simply by meeting
or communicating with political dissidents (aka terrorists). [
http://www.ibtimes.com/ndaa-lawsuit-journalists-activists-challenge-government-vagueness-indefinite-detention-statute
] (Glenn Greenwald wrote a phenomenal article on this subject.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/obama-appeals-ndaa-detention-law
)
This handful of examples proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the
government will use misleading language to justify gross violations of our
civil liberties. The language used can be downright antithetical to its stated
purpose or provisions in the bill may have absolutely nothing to do with the
rest of the bill. The main purpose behind the title of a bill is to elicit
emotion. This brings me to the impending Assault Weapons Ban. What is an assault
weapon? Might this be another case of giving a bill a populist title and
expecting the public to ignore the content? When most of us hear "assault
weapon" we think of an AR-15 or an AK-47. The truth is, the proposed
legislation goes much farther than banning AR-15s and AK-47s. The ban contains
vague language that is designed to be interpreted differently and built upon as
time goes by. So every regulatory action that applies to "assault
weapons" will undoubtedly be applied to every firearm.
THE FALSE LOGIC BEHIND THE ASSAULT WEAPON BAN
This tactic has been used by many
other governments over the years, most recently Australia's. These regulations
include: an additional $200 tax on every firearm, requiring we ask permission
to transport them across state lines, outlawing the private transfer of firearms,
including inheritance, guns will have to be turned in to government upon the
death of an individual. Even though the Supreme Court has recognized handguns
as the natural choice for self-defense [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
] the legislation also targets any handguns "capable of accepting more
than ten rounds" which qualifies any pistol with a magazine. All of this
preaching and lawmaking is being handed down to us by people who enjoy taxpayer
funded, 24/7 armed security.
That is the intent of our leaders,
to distract us with sensationalism and fear-mongering, and this tactic is all
too common. Anything that can be used to assault someone could be considered an
assault weapon. Rope was commonly used in homicides in antebellum. Chainsaws
and other power tools have the ability to do a great deal of damage to a human
body and they are commonly depicted as such in Hollywood movies. Fact is, these
types of rifles in question are used in very few assaults. Guns are tools which
greatly enhance your ability to defend yourself. Any tool in the wrong hands
can be dangerous. It is estimated that 300 million guns are owned by US
civilians; only 613 fatal gun accidents occurred in 2007, a rate of .000002
accidents per gun. [this site has a vast amount of non-partisan gun data:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
] This demonstrates the responsibility and caution exercised by legal gun
owners. Diane Feinstein, the author of the Assault Weapons Ban (or the ‘Restricting
your Right to Lawful Self Defense Bill’) has admitted that she has carried a
firearm in the past. She managed to keep her gun from assaulting anybody, as do
millions of responsible gun owners. She can be seen in this congressional
testimony displaying the common-sense logic most people use when they decide to
carry a gun. [
http://youtu.be/B1EObqM9Z0s
] Violent crime is a function of poverty and mental illness, not a function of
gun ownership.
According to the FBI, "hands, fists, feet, etc." and "other
weapon" are more commonly used in assaults than any type of firearm.
Handguns are the most common murder weapon. [
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_19_rate_number_of_crimes_per_100000_inhabitants_additional_information_about_selected_offenses_2011.xls]
So why do we classify semi-automatic rifles as assault-weapons when they are so
rarely used in assaults? Based on the data, logic would have us classify hands
and feet as assault weapons and handguns as murder weapons. This would be too
transparent, it is more effective to focus on an object that is unfamiliar and
spooky to the average person and not allow any debate to occur outside this
constructed generality. If we allow politicians to determine what features
qualify an object as an assault weapon we are sure to lose our right to
reasonable self-defense.
Categorically labeling certain
types of guns as assault weapons is nothing short of discrimination. We are
seeing a rising trend in discrimination, an example being the Sandy Hook
shooter having his DNA examined for the purposes of future genetic profiling
[
http://rebellionnews.com/freelance-writers/genetic-profiling-of-the-sandy-hook-shooting/
]. This is obviously a bad idea, but what about the racial and gender profiling
that has occurred expansively in the past?
Mass shooters are almost always white males,
sometimes obtaining their guns without background checks. Should we profile all
white males who may or may not own a gun on the record? Try selling that idea
to Washington!
We already require a federal
background check for every firearm purchase, including muzzle-loaders and
single-shot shotguns. There is no "gun show loophole". Individuals
may sell guns to one another as they would in their homes. [
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm
] All commercial vendors are FFL licensed and you need a CCW license to
purchase a firearm from these vendors. This requires you to take a class, pass
a test, and pass a federal background check. If you have any history of violent
crime or mental problems, you should not pass this background check. If those
checks need to be more strenuous, improve them, do not take the rights of
lawful citizens. Gun owners have a vested interest in keeping guns out of the
hands of criminals. Unfortunately, criminals usually obtain their guns through
illegal means and carry them regardless of liscensing and "gun free
zone" restrictions. This is the difference between a lawful citizen and a
criminal: criminals do not obey laws. Making more laws does not restrict those
individuals who habitually break laws. This seems like common sense to gun
owners but this is another bit of logic which the media purposefully ignores.
We are talking about prior
restraint, punishment before a crime occurs. Should we exterminate all Pit-Bull
dogs because the majority of the public regards them as dangerous and
unnecessary? NO! This is America, we should have the freedom to exercise
discretion and every individual should not be punished for the crimes of a few
bad actors. This idea is antithetical to the principles of freedom and liberty.
Millions of lawful citizens own guns for self -defense. Dangerous criminals who
own guns for illegal purposes are already afoul of the law, they should be
punished. Our prisons are over half-full of non-violent offenders. [
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/America_s_One_Million_Nonviolent_Prisoners.pdf
]
I advocate civil punishments for non-violent
offenders and stiff criminal penalties for violent ones. Prisons are intended
to isolate dangerous persons from the general public, not victimize civil
offenders. If we criminalize non-violent gun owners, this will only take more
resources away from their rightful use: protecting our communities from violent
criminals.
Let’s be honest, the proposed
Assault Weapons ban, when only applied to non-criminals, is a Defense Weapons
Ban. We should empower more would-be victims to defend themselves and their
families from the criminal element. The gun culture of America encourages
responsibility and independence. This is the true reason that the State wants
to eliminate it.
.jpg)
.jpg)
