“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment