J. Neil Schulman
@ Agorist.com
@ Agorist.com
I’m reprinting this for a second time here from the July 15, 2009 issue of The New Gun Week.
Gabrielle Giffords
The assassination attempt made yesterday on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D, AZ) is exactly the sort of politically-motivated violence I discussed in my Gun Week guest editorial published 18 months ago. I contemplated that the target would be President Obama. That’s it’s a moderate Democratic Party Jewish Congresswoman in Arizona doesn’t change my point: that there are always what I called “demented clowns” who attach themselves to any cause, and whose identification with that cause can damage it, perhaps irreparably.
Jared Lee Loughner’s ravings on YouTube against fiat money will be used to dismiss as demented anyone who now advocates gold and silver as money, and charges the Federal Reserve to be a criminal fraud that dwarfs anything done by Bernard Madoff.
His choosing a politician who voted to expand the powers of the federal government — and who deserved a Tea Party challenge for that reason — gives sympathy to those who advocate for greater government control over our lives.
There is a message here that must be taken from it: bad things done in the name in a good cause must not be used to dismiss the rightness of the cause.
For murdering nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green, and five others, may Jared Lee Loughner swiftly get a needle in his arm that delivers him to Hell.
— JNS, January 9, 2011
Anybody old enough remembers 1968 as the year the Second Amendment went into a coma.
Five years earlier, November 22nd, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by rifle fire in Dallas.
Then, April 4th, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated by rifle fire in Memphis.
Two months after King’s murder, June 5th, 1968, after celebrating victory in the California Democratic Presidential Primary, President Kennedy’s younger brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, was assassinated with a handgun at the Ambassador Hotel in L.A.
Twenty weeks after the second Kennedy murder, the Gun Control Act signed by President Lyndon Johnson October 22nd, 1968, imposed federal gun controls on the sale or transfer of common firearms. Now any firearm crossing state lines had to be transferred or sold only through a federally licensed firearms dealer and records kept on buyers.
Why this history lesson?
Ever since June 26th, 2008, when the Supreme Court in its Heller decision recognized the Second Amendment as constitutionally enshrining an individual right to keep and bear arms, there’s been guarded optimism among Second Amendment proponents that a slow-and-steady march toward extinction of our rights had finally been reversed. The Ninth Circuit Appellate Court, which in its 1996 decision HICKMAN v. BLOCK wrote “[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right,” reversed itself on the basis of Heller and on April 20th in NORDYKE v. KING not only recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right but incorporated it through the 14th Amendment as one that must be recognized by state and local governments. On June 2nd the Seventh Circuit reached an opposite conclusion in NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. CITY OF CHICAGO, increasing likelihood the Supreme Court will have to decide between them.
But the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling was 5-4, and if the Court shifts to an anti-Second Amendment make-up, Heller could be short-lived.
Second Amendment politics is therefore still critical and politically motivated murders using firearms – particularly those identified with conservative causes – could once again swing the balance of public opinion against the Second Amendment.
We’ve had two political murders identified with conservative causes – both using firearms – within as many weeks.
On May 31st anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder, using a handgun, fatally shot George R. Tiller, MD, while Dr. Tiller was handing out prayer books during services at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. Roeder is reported to have been a member of the “anti-government Freemen Militia” in Topeka, and a 2005 court ruling in a custody case identified him as schizophrenic. Dr. Tiller’s Women’s Health Care Services in Wichita was one of only three clinics nationwide performing late-term abortions. It wasn’t the first time Dr. Tiller had been a shooting victim. On August 19th, 1993, using a handgun, anti-abortion activist Shelley Shannon had shot Dr. Tiller in both arms.
Ten days after the church shooting, June 10th, James von Brunn carried a .22 rifle into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., and shot to death African-American security guard, Stephen T. Johns. Motive? FBI Agent Richard Farnsworth filed a sworn affidavit that he found a handwritten note in von Brunn’s car that reads, “You want my weapons – this is how you’ll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews.”
Clearly both Roeder and von Brunn identified with conservative causes. The Right to Life movement is right wing, as are “anti-government militias.” Not only did von Brunn worry about losing his firearms but in 1981 he’d pulled a sawed-off shotgun at Federal Reserve headquarters, threatening to take the Board hostage. As author, myself, of a novel in which the Federal Reserve causes a U.S. economic meltdown – a point of agreement between this particular right-wing Jew and this particular right-wing neo-Nazi — there’s no question for me that right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are engaging in a disgustingly dishonest game of spin when they try to convince their listeners that James von Brunn’s Nazi affections are left-wing, and his anti-Semitism no worse than President Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright’s.
As my fellow libertarian novelist, Brad Linaweaver, pointed out to me, the Nazi Party in 1930’s Germany came to power by fusing left-wing economics with right-wing nationalism.
And as far as I know, the only thing the Reverend Wright has ever shot off is his mouth.
The issue is not whether Roeder or von Brunn were hateful and mentally unbalanced. Of course they were. Neither one could have passed a firearms background check, particularly the convicted felon, James von Brunn.
Nor is it reasonably deniable that there are as many hateful and mentally unbalanced individuals on the hard left. Mega-deaths achieved not only by Nazis but Communists – plus endless ethnically and religiously motivated killings in Ulster, Rwanda, and Sarajevo – leave few political movements free of bloody hands.
Unlike much of the rest of the world violence is still the exception rather than the norm in the struggle for American political change. But no “American exceptionalism” can shield us from political violence if we’re not as vigilant in purging the haters who join our causes as we are in pursuing our love of those values which make our lives fruitful, free, and just.
Silent tolerance of bigots and haters is an intolerable danger to our just causes – particularly when one of those causes is the deterrence to despotism the Framers intended widespread private firearms to be. Our movement has a good track record in rooting out and shunning extremists, but that’s not good enough. We also need to admit openly that evil men do walk among us, and to tell the pundits who claim to educate us that that lying in defense of our rights is no virtue.
Most importantly, we need to remain civil in disputes with our opponents, even while we fortify our backbones with steel.
The Second Amendment movement just can’t tolerate a Bill O’Reilly who – knowing that Dr. Tiller had previously been shot at and his clinic bombed — repeatedly and editorially called George Tiller a “baby killer.” O’Reilly boasts The O’Reilly Factor has the highest ratings in cable/satellite television news. O’Reilly knew there are always psychotics waiting for a justification to commit mad violence and it was as foreseeable endlessly repeating “Tiller the Baby Killer” was inviting murder as it was for King Henry II’s infamous remark that led to the assassination of Thomas à Becket: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
It’s a lesson I learned in 1994.
While promoting my book Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns on the Chuck Baker radio show in Colorado Springs in August, 1994, I implored listeners to burn up Congress’s phone lines to stop passage of the unconstitutional Federal Assault Weapon Bill.
One listener was Francisco Martin Duran, who was so worked up by our feverish rhetoric that he travelled to Washington D.C. and on October 29th, 1994 opened fire with his SKS semi-auto rifle on the White House lawn. Duran was convicted of trying to assassinate President Clinton and sentenced to 40 years. Like Roeder, Duran was mentally unbalanced. Like von Brunn he had a criminal record.
Knowing that, I still now temper my rhetoric whenever I’m at a microphone.
I have as many policy differences with President Obama as anyone else in the conservative or libertarian movements, particularly with economic policies. Nonetheless I voted for Obama over the slightly-more centrist John McCain. I saw Obama’s election as an opportunity to show the world once-and-for-all that America had moved beyond its sad history of race slavery and Jim Crow. It hurts me when I receive email from a conservative friend with an animated cartoon of a shucking-and-jiving dancing Obama that easily could come from the KKK.
It frightens me when Sean Hannity churns listeners by endless harping on the President’s guilt-by-association with a 1960’s anti-Vietnam-War terrorist and oppression-legacy black minister, or calling the President’s quest for an end to violence between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs “selling out Israel.”
How can Hannity claim to be fair-and-balanced when he refuses to inform his listeners that President Barack Hussein Obama’s White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Israel Emanuel, is an observant Jew whose father fought with the Irgun underground in the founding of Israel and, himself, served as a civilian volunteer on an Israeli military base during the Persian Gulf war of 1991?
I have no problem with anyone opposing any Obama policies that we consider compromise our founding principles or weaken our rights.
But neither can we Second Amendment supporters tolerate extreme rhetoric directed at a President certified as achieving electoral victory who’s taken the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The remedy provided by the Constitution, should he fail to live up to that oath, is impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate – not a knife on the floor of the Senate or rifle fire aimed at a presidential motorcade.
God help us if another demented clown — even remotely associated with any of our causes — shoots at the first black President of the United States.
I do not believe the Second Amendment could survive it.
It’s not like change can’t be inspired by civilized rhetoric.
Read Thomas Jefferson’s harshest summation about King George III in the Declaration of Independence:
“A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Jefferson didn’t even need to drop the F-bomb.
–J. Neil Schulman
Pahrump, NV
J. Neil Schulman is author of the book, Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns, of which Charlton Heston said, “Mr. Schulman’s book is the most cogent explanation of the gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose.”
This article is Copyright © 2009 The J. Neil Schulman Living Trust. All rights reserved.
My comic thriller Lady Magdalene’s — a movie I wrote, produced, directed, and acted in it — is now available for sale or rental on Amazon.com Video On Demand. If you like the way I think, I think you’ll like this movie. Check it out!
January 9, 2011 - 7:58 pm
Good and thoughtful post, Neil. Do you mind if I repost it (or link and excerpt) to our kooky friends at OL?
January 11, 2011 - 5:30 am
Sure.
January 11, 2011 - 12:23 pm
I find nothing whatsoever that can be called “political” in the online gibberish from the Tucson murderer. You serve the very thing you fear by assuming the contrary. Could you provide some coherent quotes to support what you say?
January 11, 2011 - 3:48 pm
His YouTube video attacks fiat money, a political position.
January 13, 2011 - 2:09 pm
Here in the UK we don’t have a gun crime problem anywhere near on the scale seen in the United States. Everyone who needs a gun has one. No-one is prevented from owning a gun if they need to use one for legitimate purposes. Consequently anyone who owns a gun is fairly easily tracked, should weapons registered to them be used in a crime.
What the legitimate purpose in owning some of the hardware this unhinged individual used on innocent people I simply cannot begin to guess. But there seems to be a popularly held notion among many Americans (I lived in California and speak from experience) that gun ownership and freedom are one and the same—as if democracy itself hinges on whether or not one is free to own a deadly weapon.
Changing this attitude among a certain band of the electorate isn’t going to be easy—but perhaps it takes a tragedy like this for America to finally have an adult conversation with itself about how people obtain firearms.
It’s interesting that those accused of inspiring the gunman, have said nothing about this obvious need for a review to the gun laws—despite that this tragedy simply wouldn’t have happened if, in the case of Palin for example, gun iconography hadn’t been used to spread a political meme. Unless, that is, you believe that there is no link between her and this sickening crime?
January 13, 2011 - 2:54 pm
Jim in the UK,
Britain already had some of the world’s strictest gun control when Dunblane happened. It did nothing to stop it. Then your “gun” crime problem went up exponentially after the government confiscation of guns following Dunblane. Your legal system protects burglars by imprisoning home-dwellers who use force to stop them. Your rates of rape, robbery, theft, muggng, assault, and home-breaking are far higher than in the U.S.
Here in the “gun crazy” US the violent crime rate is lowest in those states with the fewest restrictions on owning and carrying guns, and gun-defenses outnumber gun crimes by an order of magnitude.
Even including Jared Lee Loughner’s victim count, I’d feel safer living in Arizona than anywhere in your country which outlaws self defense and encourages criminal behavior by punishing self defense worse than assault or home invasion.
In other words, you don’t know what you’re talking about. But why should you? You’re a slave being lied to by his masters.
January 13, 2011 - 6:49 pm
I hear this a lot and it came up several times in conversation with my American friends too. Problem is it simply isn’t true. Under UK law you’re entitled to use reasonable force to protect yourself from a burglar or physical attack. It is not a crime to injure or seriously harm anyone who intends to harm you. The widely publicised cases of individuals who have been prosecuted for using excessive force when attacking intruders led to a clarification of the law which actively supports the victim—as well as taking a holistic approach to rehabilitating the criminal, in the prison system, which you’ll find is rather hard to do if the back of their head is missing. No-one turns to crime as a lifestyle choice, and the idea that the only way to treat people who haven’t had the best start in life is to blow their brains out doesn’t solve anything—it makes it worse.
Secondly, I wasn’t generalising about “gun crazy” Americans. I accept that the vast majority see gun ownership as a legitimate right and act responsibly. It’s a terrible stereotype to say all Americans are trigger happy loons and I don’t buy into it.
But there’s a vast difference between owning a personal firearm, which might only ever be used as a deterrent, and having laws so lax they enable someone clearly in need of physiciatric treatment to buy an array of weaponry for which they can’t possibly have a legitimate need to own. And if the majority of gun owners truly were as responsible as they claim to be they would accept this fact and embrace the opportunity to make the law work for everyone, rather than assume anyone who tries to speak rationally about this problem is a wet liberal.
As for the notion that I am a slave, I have news for you. Our masters aren’t ‘the other people’, they’re us. We are the consumers of our own slavery. You didn’t grow the cotton in your T-Shirt any more than you grew the wheat in your bread or raised the cow that put the milk in your Starbucks. None of us are truly free—and anyone who thinks the line of demarkation between those who are and those who aren’t being about who owns the most guns is living in cloud cuckoo land.
January 13, 2011 - 8:15 pm
Stop right there. A stranger breaks into my home, I’m not interested in their sob story. I don’t care how lousy their childhood was and how many priests raped them. I don’t cared how they’re saving up for a kidney transplant for their sainted mother . I don’t care that they have starving babies to feed.
Their rights all end at my doorstep the moment they invade. Any force I use against this invader is justified, and that includes tossing battery acid into their eyes to blind them while I get out my flame thrower.
I’m not interested in rehabilitating someone who attacks me or invades my home. Let God and the angels sort out what to do with their soul after I’ve delivered it FedEx and their earthly trash to the morgue.
You’re so far brainwashed with nonsensical propaganda there’s no talking to you. There is no moral basis for your statements. I don’t have the ability to read the mind of the person who attacks me or breaks into my home. For all I know he may be another Charles Manson and I have to assume he is there for no other reason than murder and mayhem.
Psychiatry is not a science. No psychiatrist has anything better than intuition to predict whether someone will become dangerous to others. Anyone who says otherwise is a snake oil salesman. So, all restrictions are backward-looking. Under the United States Constitution you have to commit a violent crime or make a violent threat against someone before your rights are restricted. That’s the only objective criteria that there is. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have people who regard themselves as above the law here, as there are in the UK.
I don’t know what your politics are on other subjects. But on the issues of crime, self-defense, and ownership of weapons necessary for self-defense, you want the people weak and disarmed and the government to arm only those they approve of. You’re not a wet liberal. You’re advocating fascism.
You trust the government with guns but not the people. You’re the one living in cloud cuckoo land.
January 13, 2011 - 9:12 pm
You presume to hold a monopoly on seeing things for what they really are, to such an extent, you fail to appreciate the impact you could have among your opponents, if only you framed your ideas with less anger and bellicose appeals to base instincts.
Nothing ever changed for the better all by itself. I’m under no such illusion as you assert I am. Sometimes, I agree, it’s right to smash a few windows and remind the government they work for us and not the other way around. But the supreme irony of the so-called Libertarian movement, is it has no interest in truly understand the power of the ordinary people, or even listening to other people’s point of view. It is becoming the very anarchy and chaos it fears the most. A self-fulfilling prophesy, bent on proving it’s own paranoia isn’t without merit, by creating the atmosphere in which the worst of society can flourish.
If you spent half as long trying to understand other people as you do convincing yourself everyone is out to get you, you might realise you’re not alone in yearning for a fairer world; where politicians and “the system” really does advance our democracy—or at least the ideal of what that word once meant.
I can only presume you are well versed in arguing with people who aren’t looking for an argument—hence the obscure assertion that I—a 37 year old, peace loving musician, who has spent my entire life raising the collective consciousness of my friends and family as to the trap we’re all born into—am facilitating fascism by advocating the exact opposite. I lament your loss of perspective in this matter, even if you don’t.
What falsifiable evidence do you have that “psychiatry is not a science”?
Which part of “love thine enemy” do you think Jesus got wrong?
January 14, 2011 - 1:16 am
Everything in this paragraph is a presumption. You fail to appreciate that I am only interested in protecting the innocent, and that people who break into a house must be be treated as invaders because it’s not the householder’s job to read their minds, psychoanalyze them, reason with them, commiserate with them philosophically about how unfair life is, or do anything except protect themselves using as much force as they deem necessary to subdue their attackers. Even if an invader offers surrender, there’s no way to know that it isn’t a trick to distract the householder while an unseen confederate launched a blindside attack. There is no way to know the number of invaders. There is no way to know what they’re after. Are they the Manson Family? Dick and Perry written about in In Cold Blood? Who knows? Who can know? It’s war at that point, and the only way you can know for sure that an enemy invader is no longer a threat is to end them.
You’re having a debate with a straw man. None of this has anything to do with my points. I’m telling you that when people attempt to disarm me, it’s not my rights or well-being they’re concerned about. They want a monopoly on force so they may decide what’s to be done with me and my property. By the attempt to conquer me I know them as my enemy, and like the home invader, I’ll resist them with the necessary force to remove the threat.
The power of the ordinary people are arms sufficient to defend themselves from all attackers.
I listen. Then I answer. You think I’m not familiar with your point of view? You think I’ve never heard this before so know what’s behind it?
Someone who claims to advocate for peace yet wants a monopoly of force for some and not others is a liar. The only peace you want — and it’s not for “the people” — is for a small aristocratic or technocratic elite to tranquilize those they don’t trust, agree with, or like.
Nuts to you.
You disarm those who want to disarm me and we’ll talk as civilized people talk. But come at me and attempt to conquer and disarm me and you can expect resistance.
I have no interest in democracy. I’m not interested in a fraudulent system claiming to be in my name yet where others, merely by their superior numbers, decide what is to be done with my life and the fruits of my labor. That’s tyranny, sharp teeth with a crocodile’s smile.
My father was a classical violinist. He carried a gun with him everyday. I’m a songwriter, an author, a screenwriter, and a filmmaker. I’m also armed. My sister studies kabbalah with a rabbi. She’s licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
We value innocent life and freedom above those in power who are afraid of the people.
You, on the other hand, call for peace, but you start by demanding I give up the only thing that can ensure it: the ability to stop a violent attacker. I consider you either a liar or a fool. I don’t know you well enough to say which.
I lament your not living in a freer country.
Just because you’ve learned how to use the word falsifiable in a sentence doesn’t mean you understand how to use it. The burden of proof is on you to prove that psychiatry is reliably predictive, which is a test for the scientific method. Psychiatry fails that test, as it must, because human beings have free will and human action is utterly unpredictable.
The part where love means giving them a pass when they’re raping your daughter or carving up your brother with a machete.
January 14, 2011 - 11:49 am
I think you’re in danger of taking the worst examples of criminality (Manson and so on) and projecting them onto people who have fallen into crime through no fault of their own. I realise that’s a somewhat loaded statement, because everyone has a choice on some level to act or not, but in general vulnerable people I have experience of aren’t inherently bad people, they just feel trapped in the only situation they’ve known since they were children. Many of them have been turned around by counselling and what we unarmed and by your definition therefore uncivilised Europeans call good old fashioned compassion and love. I would hazard a guess that the gun to the head approach hasn’t ever turned anyone towards a more fruitful life.
—
I also think you’re confusing the need for tighter controls over who owns guns with disarming people legitimately entitled to hold them. No-one is suggesting people who have a genuine need to own a firearm should be prevented from doing so. I hear the suggestion from conservative talk radio all the time, that this is what those of us who think it might be a good idea to not let lunatics own weapons are asking for, but for my part I don’t think that is right and I further refute your allegation of using straw-man tactics. Jared Lee Loughner is not a straw-man, he is a real world example of the sorts of people you want to arm and I don’t. Hence my earlier assertion that you are creating the very climate your “them and us” delusions fear the most.
—
Again, you’re making your point by assuming I am something I am not. The bile and vitriol has to stop. You don’t make any more sense by riling yourself up into a sweat about what you think I am, with your fingers in your ears while I tell you what I actually want. The internal dialogue isn’t getting you anywhere—and by ‘you’ I mean the Libertarian movement as a whole—which you seem happy to belong to despite that vast swathes of it are being payed for by the very people who instigated the financial meltdown both our nations are suffering from as we speak. If installing them even deeper into the system is your goal, keep on digging.
—
I’m not going to pretend to be a world authority on psychiatry in the way you do on everything else, but if there is one thing I’ve managed to get a grasp on, in the last 37 years, it’s the difference between deliberately doing harm and endeavouring to do good. Against that criteria psychiatry produces data which can be used to make predictions about possible treatments for a wide range of illnesses. It follows the scientific method. Unlike prayer for example.
Wonderful imagery you saved types carry around with you.
January 14, 2011 - 8:06 pm
Let’s say I hear a noise in the middle of the night which wakes me up. I grab my gun and discover two men in my house who I don’t know. You suggest that in the middle of the night I consider the possibility that they’re there for some other reason than to steal from me and that in the absence of any knowledge of them make an assumption other than that since they are deranged enough to break into my house I must assume they are deranged enough to murder my family or commit any number of other crimes. Instead, you want me to consider — in the middle of the night with two strangers who’ve broken my locks — what limited opportunities they’ve had in life, to offer them hospitality, and to begin a negotiation with them which begins by my disarming myself to place us on a more equal footing.
You’re absolutely bonkers.
I realize I’m talking a foreign language to you, but my right to possess the tools of self-defense is not an entitlement handed down by the government, or even a constitution. It is not part of any social compact. It’s a natural right. I don’t regard anyone as entitled to rule on my natural rights. It’s a price more than I am willing to pay for engaging with others. They either recognize this natural right and make zero attempts to violate it, or they are criminal scum.
No. Not a need. It doesn’t matter whether I have a need. I have a right.
Let? What makes you think you have the standing to decide for anyone else what their rights are? You don’t “let.” You mind your own business on your own property, and when you come onto my property you act like a guest or leave.
I can believe in Peter Pan, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and Global Warming, but unless I make an overt move to violate someone else’s rights the state of my mind is none of your or anyone else’s business. I can will all my property to my pet cockroaches. I can think reality TV is real. No technocrat or medicrat gets to decide who is “sane” unless that person either asks for help or commits a crime.
If I’d been there armed I would have disarmed him the moment it became evident what he was doing. Before he initiated violence or issued a threat nobody had the right to presume anything violent about him.
You’re not very good at sticking to the point or even following your own argument. You just said Loughner is real. Once he fired the gun it damned well is “us” versus “him.”
It’s evident to me that your worldview is thoroughly statist, and not just on this issue. And stop trying to psychoanalyze me or attribute motives to me. You’re not qualified. As I’ll demonstrate completely in a moment.
See? You don’t know a thing about me. I’m not a Christian.
January 14, 2011 - 10:38 pm
January 15, 2011 - 3:02 am
January 15, 2011 - 10:20 am
Von Brunn probably never shot anybody. Read the details:
http://signofthetimes.yuku.com/topic/1363/6-10-09-Holocaust-Museum-Shooting