THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SHOOTING INCIDENT DIDN’T HAVE TO HAPPEN. HERE'S WHY!

ANOTHER “MASS SHOOTING” BECAUSE THOSE WHO “HATE GUNS” REMAIN PERENNIALLY BLIND TO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THESE TRAGEDIES

MULTISERIES ON THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL SAFETY

PART FOUR

Mass shootings need not happen but continue to happen because of ineffective security measures.Video footage shows the assailant, Anthony McRae, walking through an unlocked door with a handgun.Yet, security officers didn't stop him.  A “mop-up” operation occurred after the fact, much too late to save lives.Mass shooting incidents don’t occur at our airports or in federal courts and office buildings because they are “hardened” against criminal violence.But the Biden Administration and the “woke” community oppose “hardening” schools and universities. Instead, they focus attention on futile gestures, like trying to discern a lunatic’s motive and decrying “guns,” “gun violence,” “far-right extremism,” and the Second Amendment.Such topics satisfy the predilections of some. They also deflect discussion away from solving a root problem and direct it toward reinforcing a narrative—one in service to an agenda. And the agenda is aimed at achieving a long-sought goal: erasing the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.The Country is not served well by this. The MSU tragedy was senseless but, unfortunately, predictable.Places of learning remain both “soft targets” and desirable targets. Sadly, “mass shootings” will recur. That is a dead certainty.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE POLITICAL BOYCOTT: AN ASSAULT ON THE NRA AND ON NRA MEMBERS’ FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Antigun activists seek to dispossess the civilian population of this Country of their firearms. That is the reason for their existence. That is the reason for their being. They will deny this of course. They will tell you they don’t want to take all your firearms away, just some of them. They will also tell you they don’t want to prevent every American citizen from owning and possessing firearms, just some of them. But, when pressed, they will admit they abhor firearms and they will tell you that, in a civilized society, no one needs firearms anymore, anyway. They will also tell you that law-abiding, rational citizens today may become lawless, rabidly insane tomorrow. That is highly improbable, ridiculously so, even if only logically possible in a philosophical sense. But mere possibility is enough, for antigun proponents and activists, to support the elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and firearms’ possession.Those who espouse the elimination of firearms would like to see civilian ownership and possession of firearms relegated to the dustbin of history. They hope that guns, as with buggy whips and corsets, will become merely a distant memory. But, there is one hitch to the antigun activists’ goal and that hitch is the presence of the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as categorically affirmed by the high Court in the landmark Heller and McDonald cases.The Bill of Rights and U.S. Supreme Court rulings prevent antigun legislators from instituting wholesale confiscation of guns in the vein of the Australian scheme. So, antigun proponents in this Nation employ an incremental approach. Instead of banning firearms en mass, they attempt to ban categories of guns.The National Firearms Act of 1934 made possession of machine guns and “sawed-off” shotguns illegal. In fits and starts, many semiautomatic weapons, called “assault weapons” by antigun proponents, have become illegal for the average American citizen to own in several States. Antigun legislators also expanded and wish to continue to expand the domain of individuals who cannot lawfully own any firearm.With the murder of students and teachers at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida by a deranged gunman, antigun activists immediately began to harness public outrage at the senseless deaths. Antigun activists directed public anger toward the activists’ perennial favorite targets: guns, gun owners, gun manufacturers and dealers; and toward their arch-enemy, the NRA.Antigun groups might have reasonably directed public anger at Hollywood for producing movies filled with gratuitous, horrific violence and carnage. They didn’t. And, they could have directed the public’s wrath toward manufacturers of violent video games. They didn’t. Nor did antigun groups look at the cultural milieu in which we live as the true root cause of violence in our Nation: broken homes; illicit drugs; criminal gangs running amok; moral relativism; multiculturalism; historical revisionism; bizarre social constructs; gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, masquerading as mere “life choice;” and the rise of atheistic and socialistic tendencies in this Country, belief systems that are incompatible with natural law and incompatible with the idea of a Divine creator in whom an effective normative ethical system derives.No! It is far easier, although absurd in the contemplation, to direct public anger at an inanimate object, the firearm, and toward the NRA, and toward any person or business entity that espouses support for the right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms.One tactic antigun activists employ recently to achieve their ends is the “political boycott.” The way it works, is this: antigun groups attack companies that have partnership arrangements with NRA. Some companies, for example, offer discounts to NRA members. Antigun activists have coerced companies into ending programs offering discounts to NRA members under threat of economic ruin and public shame and condemnation. The purpose of these political boycotts is expressive and coercive, not economic. Antigun activists seek social and political change here, not economic benefit.The use of the political boycott invariably has a First Amendment free speech component, but even those who support the use of political boycotts recognize its danger. “Boycotts are indeed powerful. They do, in fact, have the ability to exact real-world, human costs from those businesses and individuals targeted. The concern over boycotts exists because they have consequences that might have the potential to extend outward from their target to impact a boycotted business's employees or community.” Democratizing The Economic Sphere: A Case For The Political Boycott, 115 W. Va. L. Rev. 531, 534 (Winter 2012), by Teresa J. Lee.Scrutiny of both motives and effects of using political boycotts to achieve political and social ends is warranted, lest our rights and liberties be destroyed.Use of the political boycott by antigun activists against the NRA is legally and morally suspect and, from a historical perspective, incongruous. The reason is that the NRA, as a Civil Rights organization—the original Civil Rights organization—has, as its first stated purpose and objective the strengthening and sanctifying of our sacred heritage:“To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens.”NRA is the only Civil Rights Group that has, as its salient raison d’être, the defense of a sacred right and liberty as codified in the U.S. Constitution. And the NRA is attacked for this! There is something both odd and deeply disturbing in antigun activists’ reliance on the exercise of one sacred right, free speech, to attack an organization whose stated objective is simply to defend a second sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, "NRA Freedom, Join It!"Keep in mind, too, that the political boycott is not merely utilized by antigun activists to harm the NRA; it is an attack on the NRA members, American citizens. Basically, NRA members have their own First Amendment right of free speech, as expressed in their support of the Second Amendment. The political boycott is used by antigun activists, and is meant to be used by antigun activists, to squelch free speech. This is an impermissible coercive use of the political boycott.“To be protected under the first amendment, the boycott advocates' appeal to their listeners must be persuasive rather than coercive. The distinction is crucial. Persuasive speech has always been accorded the highest first amendment protection on the theory that the free flow of ideas is central to our democratic system of government: ‘the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.’ By contrast, speech that deprives its listeners of freedom of choice, i.e., coercive speech, distorts the marketplace of ideas by causing listeners to accept an idea not for its ‘truth’ but to avoid some sanction. Coercive speech also undermines the political process, since a democratic society depends upon the autonomy of those who publicly espouse a point of view and of those who listen.” Secondary Boycotts and the First Amendment, 51 U. Chi. L. Rev. 811, 825 (Summer 1984), by Barbara J. Anderson.There is, though, no autonomy between those who publicly espouse the elimination of civilian gun ownership, ergo de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, comprising antigun activists, antigun legislators, antigun billionaire Globalists, and members of the mainstream media who shriek at and attempt to cajole into submission, the American public and businesses, the listeners, who may happen to harbor contrary views.These antigun influences, some domestic and some foreign, intend to speak to and for the American public and for the business community. For companies that do not willingly accede to the antigun agenda, the political boycott operates as a club to coerce compliance with that agenda. The political boycott is not used here as a mechanism meant merely to persuade.The political boycott is as well, a club wielded against NRA members. Antigun proponents ostracize Americans who are NRA members. But, NRA membership is a legitimate First Amendment expression of one’s Second Amendment right. By attacking a citizen’s membership in NRA, antigun forces seek to control speech, crushing dissent. In a free Republic this cannot be countenanced. NRA members should challenge these boycotts.

 ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS NOW!

Tell Congress to enact laws to prevent antigun groups from coercing and threatening retaliatory action against companies that do not adopt the groups’ political views.PHONE: U.S. Senate: (202) 224-3121;PHONE: U.S. House of Representatives: (202) 225-3121______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE PARKLAND, FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOL TRAGEDY MAKES THE CASE FOR ARMED SELF-DEFENSE.

In the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School tragedy, the mainstream Press, echoing the sentiments of antigun activists and antigun legislators, focused the public’s attention on two subjects: guns and mental illness. Antigun activists argue that guns and mental illness are both intractable. Mix the two like a cocktail and you have a recipe for disaster. That, as maintained by antigun activists, accurately explains the cause of the mass shooting incident at the Parkland, Florida High School. But does it?In an editorial, appearing in The New York Times on February 24, 2018, titled, “I Can’t Stop Mass Shooters,” by Amy Barnhorst, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis, admitted the conundrum. The author writes, “Each mass shooting reignites a debate about what causes this type of violence and how it can be prevented. Those who oppose further restrictions on gun ownership often set their sights on the mental health care system. Shouldn’t psychiatrists be able to identify as dangerous someone like Nikolas Cruz. . . ? And can’t we just stop unstable young men like him from buying firearms? It’s much harder than it sounds.”The author has no answer other than the perfunctory, putting “some distance between these young men and their guns.” But, would that prevent mass violence? Clearly, it would not even if this seems plausible to some. Signs of mental illness in a person do not automatically mean a person has violent tendencies. Conversely, those individuals who not fall within one or more listed categories in the latest version of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (“DSM-5”)—the Psychiatrist’s Bible—may have violent tendencies.

FROM AN EMPIRICAL STANDPOINT, DISPOSSESSING CIVILIANS OF THEIR GUNS WILL DO NOTHING TO CIRCUMVENT VIOLENT CRIME.

“The reality is that mass shootings are very rare and that neither mental illness nor mass shootings are a significant cause of gun violence. Individuals with a serious mental illness only account for approximately 4 percent of all violent crime in the United States, the majority of which is not committed with a firearm. Furthermore, individuals having no history of mental illness committed a number of these mass shootings. With mental illness representing such a small fraction of gun violence, gun-control efforts focused solely on the mentally ill are ‘unlikely to significantly reduce overall rates of gun violence in the United States.’” “The New York Safe Act: A Thoughtful Approach To Gun Control, Or A Politically Expedient Response To The Public's Fear Of The Mentally Ill?”, 88 S. Cal. L. Rev. 16, 43-44 (2015), by Matthew Gamsin, J.D. Candidate, 2015, University of Southern California Gould School of Law.Despite this evidence, antigun activists nonetheless vehemently call for general bans on the sale of semiautomatic “assault weapons” and are specifically targeting those individuals deemed to have mental illness, which may very well raise due process and equal protection issues for millions of Americans. Were these steps taken, violence would still ensue. Consider:“On April 15, 2013, two homemade bombs detonated 12 seconds and 210 yards (190 m) apart at 2:49 p.m., near the finish line of the annual Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring several hundred others, including 16 who lost limbs.  On April 18, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released images of two suspects, who were later identified as Kyrgyz-American brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.” “The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist truck bombing on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States on April 19, 1995. Perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the bombing killed 168 people, injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one-third of the building.” “Eight people were killed and almost a dozen injured when a 29-year-old man in a rented pickup truck drove down a busy bicycle path near the World Trade Center Tuesday in Manhattan, New York City. The suspect was identified by two law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation as Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov. He's from Uzbekistan in Central Asia but had been living in the US since 2010, sources said.” Whether these killers were mentally ill in a clinical sense or “normal,” they did not need a firearm to create havoc.Of course, antigun activists and their cheerleaders in the mainstream Press and in Congress argue that civilized Countries place restrictions on civilian access to guns and that doing so would constrain a killer’s access to one lethal instrumentality. Still, antigun activists must contend with the legal ramifications of attempting to curtail civilian access to firearms in a Country where the citizenry's rights and liberties, codified in a Bill of Rights, cannot be so easily dismissed.

INDISCRIMINATELY DISPOSSESSING THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THEIR GUNS WOULD NOT HOLD UP TO LEGAL SCRUTINY.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN THE LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT HELLER CASE, HELD THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, NOT CONNECTED TO SERVICE IN A MILITIA. FURTHER, THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT EMBODIES  ARMED SELF-DEFENSE. AND FROM A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE, CIVILIAN DEFENSE OF ARMS IS PRESSING BECAUSE, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THE POLICE ARE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO SAFEGUARD THE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS. THAT RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ON EACH PERSON.

Antigun activists retort that nothing in the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an American citizen to own and possess an “assault weapon.” But, is that true?First, the concept of ‘assault weapon’ is a legal fiction that encompasses a wide range of weaponry. On examination it becomes clear that antigun proponents and activists are not merely targeting some semiautomatic weapons; they are targeting all semiautomatic weapons. The legal issue is whether semiautomatic weapons in common use—which include firearms defined as 'assault weapons'—fall within the core of Second Amendment protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on this. But, that does not mean Government, State or Federal, may presume semiautomatic weapons, especially those firearms referred to as “assault weapons,” do not fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Second, a corollary to the basic, unfettered, natural right codified in the Second Amendment is that American citizens have a right to possess a firearm for self-defense. Antigun activists argue that armed self-defense is unnecessary because it is the duty of the police to safeguard the lives and well-being of the citizenry. But do police departments, as government entities, really have that duty? They do not!“No inquiry is more central to constitutional jurisprudence than the effort to delineate the duties of government. The courts' approach to this complex subject has been dominated by reliance on a simple distinction between affirmative and negative responsibilities. Government is held solely to what courts characterize as a negative obligation: to refrain from acts that deprive citizens of protected rights. Obligations that courts conceive to be affirmative—duties to act, to provide, or to protect—are not enforceable constitutional rights. “The Negative Constitution, A Critique,” 88 Mich. L. Rev. 2271 (August 1990) by Susan Bandes, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of law.The safeguarding of one's life is then a personal responsibility, not a police responsibility. Broward County residents, especially those high school students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, should have learned that lesson well. Many, obviously, have not as they--at the behest of their silent benefactors and choreographers of their political strategies, the antigun groups--act against their own best interests. They lash out at NRA, the very organization that serves them by protecting their sacred right of armed self-defense; and they call for civilian disarmament leaving them worse off. The duty of the Police is merely to safeguard, in some nebulous sense, the well-being of a community as a whole, not the lives of the individuals who live in it. But, then, since Government has no affirmative duty to provide armed protection for each citizen, Government cannot, in good faith, deny the citizen the natural right of armed defense owed to one's self. If the public is to take away anything from the recent Parkland, Florida tragedy, it is this:The Broward County Sheriff’s Department and the first responders from the Coral Springs Police Department did an abysmal job. By the time the Coral Springs Police SWAT team arrived, it was too late. Lives had been lost. An investigation unfolds, but it means nothing; for, whatever the outcome, police departments do not have and never did have an affirmative duty to protect individuals within a community. They are immune from suit. This is not supposition. It is law.“Thus . . . a claim that police officers failed to protect a particular individual from injury by nongovernmental actors is generally not cognizable; a successful claim would require sufficient prior contacts between police and the individual to indicate a specific undertaking or promise by the police to provide protection and detrimental reliance by the individual. Absent such facts, there is generally no liability for failure to enforce laws and regulations intended to benefit the community as a whole, failure to provide police or fire protection, or failure to inspect." Affirmative Duties, Systemic Harms, and the Due Process Clause, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 982, 999-1000 (February, 1996), by Barbara E. Armacost, Professor of Law, University of Virginia.The first and last line of adequate defense both inside the home and outside it is, as it always was, as the framers of our Constitution knew full well and as they provided for: armed self-defense.

ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES NOW.

Call your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives.  Tell them this: “if you want my support, then vote for national handgun carry reciprocity now.”PHONE U.S. SENATE: (202) 224-3121;PHONE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: (202) 225-3121______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE COURTS, NO LESS THAN CONGRESS, IS WHERE ONE WILL FIND THE SECOND AMENDMENT EITHER SAFEGUARDED AND STRENGTHENED OR ENDANGERED AND WEAKENED.

REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF ALL THREE-BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN BOTH THE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE OF OUR NATION STATE, AND THE SUPREMACY OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS.

The mandate of a Republican controlled Congress, and of a Republican President and of a federal court system--comprising jurists who recognize the supremacy of our laws and of our Constitution over foreign laws and over the decisions of foreign tribunals and who recognize and appreciate the critical importance of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, as codified in the Bill of Rights--is this: to maintain our roots as a unique People; to make certain that our Country continues to exist as a free Republic and as an independent, sovereign Nation, beholden to no other Nation or to any group of Nations; and to keep sacred the supremacy of our Constitution and our system of laws, grounded in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights--a Bill of Rights that has no parallel in any other Nation on this Earth. To succeed in this mandate it is imperative that: one, Congress retain a Conservative Republican majority; two, that Donald Trump remain as U.S. President through two terms in Office; and, three, that the U.S. Supreme Court hold a conservative-wing majority and that the lower federal Courts seat a majority of  jurists who recognize and appreciate the supremacy of our Constitution and of our laws and of our sacred rights and liberties, and who render opinions with that principle omnipresent.Obviously, those malevolent forces that seek to undermine the sovereignty of this Nation, that seek to subvert the will of the American People, that seek to undercut and subordinate our Constitution, our system of laws and our fundamental rights and liberties, are working for the precise opposite. They seek to gain Democratic Party majorities in both Houses of Congress in the midterm elections, and, if they can accomplish that, they will undoubtedly pursue efforts to impeach Trump, using the tenuous, ludicrous, tax-payer funded Mueller investigation, chasing after ghosts, as a springboard to destroy the Trump Presidency. These individuals and groups, bankrolled by a shadowy, secretive, ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elite”, hope, as well, to create a liberal wing majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. To do that, they must win back the White House.Those who seek to destroy the sovereignty of this Nation and to undermine the true import and purport of the Bill of Rights are rankled by two specific events that they cannot, and, obviously, will not abide: one, the failure to usher Hillary Rodham Clinton into the Office of U.S. President, which they thought was an assured bet; and, two, the failure to seat Merrick Garland—the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and President Barack Obama’s nominee—on the U.S. Supreme Court. These critical and monumental failures of the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elite” who bankroll and control the Deep State of the federal Government—the forces that would dare crush this Nation and the American people into submission—have suffered an extraordinary setback in their plans for world domination. To reset the clock in accordance with their global strategy, they have been forced to show their hand. The negative forces that manipulate and control the Government of this Nation and that manipulate and control the Governments of those Nations that comprise the EU have emerged from the shadows and have forced their toadies in this Country to surface from the depths of the Deep State of the federal Government, to undermine, at every turn, the efforts of the duly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump. Not content to undermine and undercut the President's policy objectives, which they attack at every turn through the well-orchestrated media circus they control, they attack the man himself, disrespectfully, caustically, and reprehensibly; and, in so doing, they demonstrate as well their disrespect for this Nation, and  for this Nation’s core values, and for this Nation’s system of laws, and for the people of this Nation who elected Donald Trump, who was then inaugurated the 45^th President of the United States, on January 20, 2017, succeeding Barack Obama.The election of Donald Trump as U.S. President has thrown a wrench into the well-oiled and greased machine of the Deep State of the federal Government of the United States. This singularly important event has thrown the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist elites, headed by the international Rothschild clan, into a state of consternation, of befuddlement, of rage and turmoil, of chaos. Their well-laid plans for world domination sees the United States as an important cog in an expansive industrial and financial machine comprising the New World Order, for no other Western Nation has as impressive a military and as impressive an intelligence apparatus, and as adept technological capabilities as those of the United States. As the forces that would crush this Nation and its people into submission have suffered a severe and costly set-back, they intend to set matters aright. The American people bear witness to the raw extent of the power and reach of these forces: one, the naked audacity of their actions; two, the evident contempt in which they hold the American people; three, the bald self-assurance and aplomb by which they plan and orchestrate a campaign of deliberate deception—through the mainstream media—a campaign of disinformation and misinformation through which they hope and trust they can manipulate the American people into accepting a bizarre worldview--one inimical to the needs and desires and well-being of the American people; four, the obscene loathing they express toward our Bill of Rights; five, the demonstrative malevolence they have shown toward the U.S. President and toward his Administration; and, six, the abject hatred they display toward this Nation’s Constitution, toward this Nation’s unique history, toward this Nation’s core values, toward this Nation’s system of laws and morals. And through the levers of media and of the Deep-State of Government that they control, they give mere lip-service and lip-homage to those very things Americans hold most dear.The Arbalest Quarrel has done its part. We have worked to help elect Donald Trump as President of the United States and have worked, as well, to defeat the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. But our work has not ended. It has, perforce, just begun.We must continue to support President Trump from the forces that, having failed to prevent his electoral success, seek, now, to place obstacles in his path, making it difficult for him to implement the policies he has promised—policies that are at loggerheads with those hostile internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist financial and industrial forces that seek global domination which, in accordance with their plans for world domination, requires the crushing of Western Nation States, including the crushing of our Nation State, the crushing of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation state; and, with that, the subordination of our laws to that of international laws and treaties and the subordination of our Courts to that of foreign Courts and foreign Tribunals; and the undermining of the sacred rights and liberties of the American citizenry. These extremely powerful, extraordinarily wealthy, and abjectly ruthless and cunning globalist forces seek eventually to topple Donald Trump and his administration. They seek also to take back control of the two Houses of Congress. We must therefore work to maintain House and Senate Republican Majorities.Further, we must work toward and anticipation of the confirmation of at least one additional, and, hopefully, two or, better yet, three conservative-wing Justices to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. With the passing of the eminent and brilliant jurist and true American patriot, Justice Antonin Scalia, we have lost a mighty champion of liberty in the vein of the founders of this Nation, the framers of our Constitution. We hope and trust and pray that, before the end of this year, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy and/or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and/or Justice Stephen Breyer will retire. That will pave the way for President Trump to nominate at least one and conceivably two, and optimally three more American jurists, to sit on the high Court who, as with Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, hold jurisprudential values and who would apply the same methodology to deciding cases as do Justices Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, which the late Justice Antonin Scalia had set the course. With strong and true conservative-wing Justices on the high Court, who hold a clear majority, we will see the Court agreeing to hear critical Second Amendment cases and, thereupon, rendering decisions that, with the Court’s untarnished and supreme judicial imprimatur, makes clear the import of the natural, fundamental rights and liberties of American citizens as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution in the manner the framers’ intended.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL LOOKS BACK ON WORK COMPLETED IN 2017 AND THEN FORWARD TO OUR TASKS FOR 2018

WHAT WERE SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 2017?

Let us step back for a moment and look at just a few of the tasks we completed in 2017, and remark briefly on tasks we have set for ourselves in 2018. Much of our work, consistent with the primary purpose of the Arbalest Quarrel involved detailed, comprehensive analyses of critical federal and State Court cases impacting the Second Amendment. One of those cases is Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932. Soto is an active case. The Soto case arises from the deadly attack that occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when a deranged young adult, Adam Lanza, 20 years old, stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School, fatally shooting twenty children and six adults, before turning a handgun on and killing himself. According to the allegations of the Soto Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (CM), Adam Lanza murdered these school children and school staff with a Bushmaster AR-15, model XM15-E2S rifle. Defendant Bushmaster prevailed in the lower Superior Court (trial Court), and we analyzed the Superior Court decision in depth. Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court, bypassing the State Court of Appeals, and the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed to hear argument. We will be analyzing the Briefs of Plaintiffs and Defendants in the case and will also analyze selected amicus (friend of Court) Briefs in that case. Over 50 amicus briefs were filed in that case. We also provided comprehensive analyses in an “assault weapons” case, (Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42. F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) ), which we had hoped would be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court—the high Court failing to have granted certiorari in an earlier disastrous “assault weapons” case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015). Alas, the high Court failed to garner four votes, allowing the case to be heard in the high Court. Had the high Court agreed to hear the case, Americans would see a definitive ruling on whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection. Obviously, the liberal wing of the Court and at least two "apparent" conservative wing Justices, likely, Anthony Kennedy and the Chief Justice, John Roberts, did not want to resolve this case, and, so, to date, resolution of “assault weapons” as protected firearms within the core of the Second Amendment remains in abeyance, with liberal Circuit Court of Appeal Judges ruling that semiautomatic "assault weapons" do not fall within the core of the Second Amendment and, so, are not protected.In addition, we looked at two Congressional bills that, if enacted, strengthen the Second Amendment. We looked at national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation, pending in Congress, H.R. 38, and looked at Congressman Chris Collins’ bill, the “Second Amendment Guarantee Act” (H.R. 3576) (“SAGA”) which has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, on September 6, 2017 where it presently sits. We also did our part to sidetrack Obama’s attempt to sit Judge Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court. When we feel it critical that our representatives in Congress be notified of specific and extraordinary dangers presented to our Nation, we have not hesitated to contact them. When, after the passing of the exceptional U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, we have seen that President Barack Obama wasted little time in nominating a person to serve as a new ninth member of the high Court who would, given the opportunity, assist the liberal-wing Justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—in unwinding case law that Justice Scalia helped to shape in his many illustrious years on the Bench. That person who President Barack Obama had hoped to see confirmed is Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Arbalest Quarrel took strong exception to the possibility of seeing Judge Garland sitting on the high Court. We sent a letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, requesting the Senator to refrain from allowing a confirmation hearing to proceed. Had a confirmation proceeding been held, that would have resulted in Judge Merrick Garland sitting on the high Court as an Associate Justice. Of that, we have no doubt, as U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch has articulated that point. According to the liberal political commentary website, "New Republic," Senator Hatch said that there was "no question" that Judge Merrick Garland would be confirmed were a confirmation hearing held. The Arbalest Quarrel explained the singular danger Judge Merrick Garland posed to the preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if Merrick Garland sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In our letter we took exception to pronouncements of several academicians who had also written a letter to Senator Grassley. Those academicians argued that nothing in the record of Judge Garland’s service as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals suggests that an inference can be drawn concerning Judge Garland’s jurisprudential philosophy toward the Second Amendment. We disagreed with the pronouncements of those academicians. We pointed to specific examples in the judicial record that establish beyond doubt that Judge Merrick Garland holds great and abiding antipathy toward the Second Amendment; and that Judge Garland’s antipathy toward the Second Amendment is very much in evidence in the judicial record, contrary to the pronouncements of those academicians who promote the Judge’s ascendancy to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our concern was not directed to Judge Garland’s ability as a jurist. We have no doubt that Judge Garland has a bright and, conceivably, brilliant legal mind. But, when that brilliance is coupled with a philosophy at loggerheads with the philosophy of another brilliant Justice, Antonin Scalia, then we know that preservation of the natural, substantive fundamental rights of the American citizenry—particularly the right of the people to keep and bear arms—are in jeopardy. In a series of in depth articles, we have written extensively about Judge Garland’s jurisprudential philosophy. We pointed out that Judge Garland’s judicial approach is clearly antithetical to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and that Justice Scalia’s illustrious work would be undone were Judge Garland to sit on the high Court. In our letter to Senator Grassley, we provided a link to the Arbalest Quarrel website and encouraged the Senator to peruse our analytical articles on Judge Garland, as the letter only touched upon the matters of concern.

THE MISSION OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL 

The mission of the Arbalest Quarrel is to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Bill of Rights, and, principally, to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Arbalest Quarrel has written dozens of articles on newsworthy and noteworthy events, impacting the Second Amendment. Many of our articles appear in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Most of the articles we prepare are comprehensive, extremely detailed, highly analytical expositions on Second Amendment issues. Many of our articles are written as part of lengthy, continuing series. Given the exigencies of time and of new and pressing newsworthy matters, we are often compelled to sidestep continuous work on a series, returning to a series later. Since threats to the Second Amendment are constant and continuous, much of the work that we may have left uncompleted in previous weeks or months is and remains pertinent. Some work that we do, involving analysis of active legal cases, such as the Soto case, cannot, of course, be completed until further action is taken by a Court and, in that event, we must await action before continuing discussion. In other cases, such as Kolbe, where we have commenced work, as part of a series, a higher Court, in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied a writ of certiorari, which means that the ruling or rulings of the second highest Court, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, remains the law in that judicial Circuit. But, as those cases involve an open-ended and critically important issue that the U.S. Supreme Court will, at some point be compelled to tackle, our analysis of lower U.S. District Court and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal decisions are still relevant and, so, hold more than historical value in terms of their impact on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Kolbe, for example, deals directly with the issue whether semiautomatic weapons, defined as ‘assault weapons’ fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment. As antigun groups intend to deny American citizens the right to legally own and possess “assault weapons,” and, as they seek, eventually, to ban civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic weapons, it is incumbent upon us and important to consider the legal arguments they present. Thus, at some point in time when the U.S. Supreme Court does deal with the issue as to the extent of or whether semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’ fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment or whether semiautomatic weapons, as a broad category of firearms, fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment--and the high Court will, at some moment in time have to consider the issue--we will have addressed, in depth, all or virtually all of the salient arguments that litigants happen to make. As we look back at the work over the years, we note our article, titled “The Arsenal of Destruction.” Concerning antigun groups efforts to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms, what we mentioned in that article is as true then as it is today. We said: Here is what we deemed then, as now, to be the salient methodologies antigun groups use to undercut the Second Amendment. There are probably more; undoubtedly, the antigun groups are busy concocting others even as we publish this list:

• ENACTMENT OF RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS

• REWRITING/RECONFIGURING/RECONSTITUTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO UNDERCUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDEPENDENT CLAUSE: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

• EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT OUTRIGHT

• INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S YOUTH

• MILITARIZATION/FEDERALIZATION OF CIVILIAN POLICE FORCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE MACHINATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

• DIRECT MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA ATTACKS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

• USE OF PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND INDOCTRINATION OF THE PUBLIC BY MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA GROUPS

• SYSTEMATIC EROSION OF THE RULE OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

• DENIAL OF GUN POSSESSION TO ENTIRE GROUPS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

• ILLEGAL ATTEMPTS BY CITIES AND TOWNSHIPS TO WEAKEN OR OVERRIDE STATE LAWS WHERE SUCH STATE LAWS ARE DESIGNED TO EXTEND SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS TO THEIR CITIZENS

• CREATING CONFUSION OVER THE CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN’ AND CREATING CONFUSION AS TO THE RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

• EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

• OVERRIDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS THROUGH INTERNATIONAL PACTS, TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND CONVENTIONS

• FALLACIOUS REASONING OF ANTIGUN GROUPS AND ANTIGUN GROUP DECEPTION AS TO THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL: DE JURE OR DE FACTO REPEAL OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

• ATTACK ON GUN RIGHTS’ ADVOCATES’ MORAL BELIEFS AND ETHICAL BELIEF SYSTEMS

• BATFE ADOPTION OF ONEROUS REQUIREMENTS FOR GUN DEALERS AND BATFE INTRUSION/ENCROACHMENT ON TRADITIONAL U.S. CONGRESSIONAL LAW MAKING AUTHORITY

• MISAPPLICATION/MISAPPROPRIATION OF THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW AND LEGAL DOCTRINE TO UNFAIRLY TARGET GUN MANUFACTURERS

• FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT OF TRADE: COERCING LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO REFRAIN FROM GIVING LOANS TO GUN DEALERS

• MANIPULATION OF THE COMPOSITION OF STATE LEGISLATURES AND OF THE U.S. CONGRESS BY MULTI-MILLIONAIRE/BILLIONAIRE TRANSNATIONAL GLOBALISTS THROUGH THE BANKROLLING OF POLITICIANS—WHO ACQUIESCE TO THEIR WISHES, AND WHO ARE WILLING TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT—AND THROUGH THE NAKED, SHAMELESS EXPLOITATION OF ATTACK ADS, TARGETING THE DEFENDERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- THOSE POLITICIANS WHO REFUSE TO KOWTOW TO THE ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA OF THE RUTHLESS MULTI-MILLIONAIRE AND BILLIONAIRE TRANSNATIONAL GLOBALISTS.

• GLOBAL CENSORSHIP/CONTROL OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET: UNDERMINING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY CONTROLLING MESSAGING WITH THE AIM, ULTIMATELY, OF INSIDIOUSLY DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH AN UNCONSCIONABLE INFRINGMENT UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT: AS CONTEMPT FOR ONE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SHOWN, SO, AS WELL, IS CONTEMPT FOR THE OTHERS DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN

• DESTRUCTION OF SOVEREIGN NATION STATES AND OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF SOVEREIGN NATION STATES THROUGH THE CREATION OF, ESTABLISHMENT OF AND INEXORABLE EXPANSION OF AN INTERNATIONAL, NEOLIBERAL INSPIRED WORLD ORDER DEDICATED TO AND WORKING TOWARD THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, AND THE ERADICATION OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY

We intended to do an article on each of these 21 strategies within the series. We didn’t complete the series, but we did write on several of these strategies and some of the strategies were touched upon in other articles. For example, our most recent article on the NY Times new “gag order” policy preventing its employees from exercising their freedom of free speech on their own time in vehicles other than the New York Times newspaper, actually is a response to two strategies we delineated on in “The Arsenal of Destruction":ONE: GLOBAL CENSORSHIP/CONTROL OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET: UNDERMINING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY CONTROLLING MESSAGING WITH THE AIM, ULTIMATELY, OF INSIDIOUSLY DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH AN UNCONSCIONABLE INFRINGMENT UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT: AS CONTEMPT FOR ONE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SHOWN, SO, AS WELL, IS CONTEMPT FOR THE OTHERS DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN; and,TWO: USE OF PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND INDOCTRINATION OF THE PUBLIC BY MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA GROUPS.Our principal mission and raison d’etre—as mentioned, supra—is to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the preservation of, protection of, and strengthening of the Second Amendment all go hand-in-hand. There exist forces both inside and outside this Country that would like to repeal the Second Amendment. Of course, they realize that repealing, de jure, any one of the Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that comprise the Bill of Rights is virtually impossible. As natural rights, there is no mechanism for repealing these rights and liberties anyway, since no man created them. The Framers of the Constitution merely codified the rights that exist intrinsically in each American citizen. That doesn’t mean that a sacred right cannot be ignored or de facto repealed which effectively reduces the right to a nullity even as the words remain intact. Thus, if the words remain, but the intent behind the words is absent, hollowed out, the right, in essence, ceases to exist. We have seen this before. The fundamental right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures has been hollowed out, as Government agencies like the CIA and NSA download and keep digital records on everyone and everything. This is patently illegal, but Federal Government agencies do it anyway. The fundamental right of free speech is beginning to be hollowed out, too, as censorship, in the guise of “political correctness” is taking its toll on free speech. The fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms was dying a slow death until the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in two seminal cases, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)), made clear what that right entails. The high Court made poignantly and categorically clear that this right—a right that must be recognized by both federal Government and by the States—is an individual right, a right, then, not connected to one’s service in a militia. Still, those Legislators and Jurists who seek to disembowel the Second Amendment have either ignored the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court or have actively tinkered with it, working around the edges of the Heller and McDonald holdings to slowly weaken the Second Amendment. But, to weaken the right is tantamount to destroying it; for the rights codified must be understood in the context the framers of the Constitution intended, as absolute imperatives. This doesn’t mean restrictions ought not be enacted that operate as deprivations on some individuals but, this deprivation is justified only if the threat posed by the one threatens the lives of millions of others, or where the threat posed by an individual undermines the sovereignty of this Nation.Consider the Second Amendment. Federal law bars persons adjudged mentally incompetent from owning and possessing firearms. Thus, the absolute right to own and possess firearms infringes the right of a person adjudged mentally incompetent but this is necessary to protect the lives of millions of innocent, law-abiding Americans. Federal law also prohibits illegal aliens from owning and possessing firearms. And, in so doing, we protect the sanctity of the notion of a Nation State comprising a unique citizenry. Antigun groups, though, don’t perceive the Bill of Rights as a set of natural rights, existing intrinsically in the individual, endowed by the Creator to the individual. They see the Bill of Rights in the same vein as do internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites,” as mere man-made creations-- statutes enacted and repealed at the will and the whim of the of the rulers that draft and enact them. As they see nothing positive in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they see nothing that mandates the preservation and strengthening of that right. So, those who attempt to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not consider restrictions on the exercise of that right from the standpoint of the restriction's negative impact on the majority of rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizens, who wish to exercise their right, but, rather, see restrictions on the exercise of that fundamental right from the utilitarian consequentialist position. Consistent with utilitarian consequentialism, it is firearms in the hands of law-abiding rational, individual, not the occasional criminal or lunatic, that is perceived as posing the real danger, the real threat. And, what is that threat? It is a threat perceived as directed against society— against an amorphous collective “hive”—a threat perceived, eventually, as one directed against the entirety of the “free” world, a free world constituted as a "New World Order." It is not the criminal or lunatic possessing a firearm that concerns those that hold to the utilitarian consequentialist theory of morality that poses the greater threat to the well-being of society. In a constant flurry of new draconian firearms bills introduced in Congress, we see, in the draft language of these bills, that it is really the average law-abiding individual--the rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizen--against whom restrictive gun measures are really targeted and leveled. These restrictive gun bills are drafted and enacted in clear defiance of the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment.Our mission, our raison d’être, is to call out those disreputable groups and to call out those legislators and to call out those Hollywood film stars and moguls and to call out those mainstream news commentators and journalists and "comedians" and to call out those inordinately wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, extremely secretive, and absolutely ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist forces that mean—all of them—to destroy our Nation State and that mean to destroy our Bill of Rights, and that mean to do so all the while claiming their efforts have a rational, ethical basis. But their actions belie their assertions. Their actions belie their true intent. These individuals, these groups, these cold-hearted ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist “elites” that control the levers of finance and industry, that control major media organizations, that operate within and control the Deep State of Government within our own Nation mean to destroy the sovereignty and independence of this Nation and they mean to upend and to destroy the supremacy of our laws and of our Constitution.These individuals distort truth; they sow seeds of discord; they confuse and confound the ill-informed masses by challenging the Nation's core values and by interposing false substitutes for those core values. They rail against and dare to rewrite our Nation's history. They attack our Judeo-Christian ethic and our Christian heritage and traditions. They mean to destroy our Nation and our sacred Bill of Rights to pave the way for an antireligious, morally bankrupt trans-global corporate New World Order conglomerate—an amorphous, muddled indistinguishable conglomeration of once proud and unique independent Nation States—a union of populations comprising the entirety of the “free” world, which these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist financiers and captains of industry plan to rule. We are beginning to see what this portends for the U.S. as they consolidate their power in the EU, with the assistance of their technocrats, their puppets.In their concerted effort to destroy the structure of and the very notion of the sanctity and sovereignty of Nation States, and of the sanctity and sovereignty of our Nation State in particular, we see insidious and perverse attempts by these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites”—through the mainstream media whom they control and through members of Congress whom they have bought—to play with language—to suggest that the notion, the idea of ‘American,’ of what the word ‘American’ means is simply a matter of personal belief. Why is such a ridiculous notion fostered? It is fostered for a reason. For, if what it means to be an ‘American,’ or, for that matter, what it means to be a Frenchman, or German, or Italian, or Canadian, for example, comes down to personal opinion and belief, then, the bonds between a person and that person’s Country is tenuous, amorphous, fragile, elusive, even illusive, and, ultimately, unimportant. This has serious ramifications for Nation States and repercussions for the people residing in a Nation State. Thus, if a person is to be deemed an American, for example, who simply and essentially believes him or herself to be an American, then, on that basis, alone, may presumptuously presume a right to live in this Country, to emigrate to this Country and to be endowed with all the rights and liberties that the United States Constitution provides.This open-ended concept of what it means to be an ‘American’ is deliberately and unconscionably fostered by those who seek an end to the very notion of a Nation State; who seek to portray people not as citizens of this or that Country but, literally, as “citizens of the world”—who may freely move about as they wish. This “open borders” philosophy is anathema to the concept of the primacy and sovereignty of Nation States which demands that independent, sovereign Nation States have a right and duty and responsibility to maintain and control their borders, and, in so doing, forestall emigration of undesirables to this Country. To allow essentially anyone and everyone to emigrate to this Country, is to denigrate and ultimately destroy the very foundation of the sovereignty and independence of a Nation State. A Nation State’s core ethical and religious and social values are in danger of erosion. That Nation’s historical roots are in danger of erosion. That Nation’s jurisprudential values and core economic principles are in danger of erosion.When educators, along with news organizations and legislators in the United States proclaim that illegal aliens are Americans, the Arbalest Quarrel has stepped in to set the record straight. Co-Founder and President of Arbalest Group, LLC., Stephen L. D’Andrilli wrote a reply to an article written by the Vice President of the United Federation of Teachers that appeared in the Union’s publication. The Arbalest Quarrel's response was published in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Stephen has penned other cogent responses to the UFT that we, as strong supporters of America’s Bill of Rights, have taken exception with.

THE WORK AHEAD FOR THE ARBALEST QUARREL IN 2018

In 2018 we will continue to analyze federal and State gun laws; federal and State gun bills; and federal and State Court cases. We anticipate seeing one and perhaps two openings on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is imperative that President Trump have the opportunity to nominate one or more individuals to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.It is in the Courts, no less than in Congress that our Bill of Rights and, especially, our Second Amendment, will be preserved, strengthened, and expanded. We will otherwise see our Bill of Rights debilitated, weakened, and restricted.The House and, more importantly, the U.S. Senate must remain firmly in the hands of Republicans and, more especially, in the hands of those who espouse a conservative philosophy, reflective of the views and philosophy and sensibilities of the Founders of our Nation, the Framers of our Constitution, the Creators of our Free Republic—not those Centrists like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, who hold to a decidedly globalist philosophy, who demonstrate globalist sympathies, and whose support of our Bill of Rights is lukewarm at best.The Democrats intend to take control of both Houses of Congress and they intend to weaken our Bill of Rights and to weaken especially the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, and the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. They intend, in league with their internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist benefactors, to weaken, debase and eventually curtail our natural, fundamental rights and liberties. For they mean to draw us insidiously into the arms of a New World Order. They intend to do this through the vehicle of international pacts and treaties and through mainstream news organizations that condition the American public to accept open borders and to accept an amorphous notion of what it means to be a citizen; and by conditioning the American public to accept the legitimacy of foreign courts to hear cases impacting our fundamental rights; and to condition the American public to accept the supremacy of international law over that of our Constitution, and over our system of laws, and over our jurisprudence; and to condition the public to accept historical revisionism, to accept bizarre, alien notions of morality and gender identity; and to condition the public to accept the dismantling of a Nation that is grounded in Christianity and in notions of self-reliance and initiative, individual responsibility. All these things are on the table, as Democrats and many Centrist Republicans seek to weaken the foundation of a Nation as designed and understood by the Founders of it.

IN CLOSING, WE SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING POINTS AND CAUTIONARY IMPERATIVES FOR OUR READERS:

If the American people are to maintain their unique roots, we must work, first and foremost to keep sacred the Bill of Rights, and that means we must understand the import and purport of the Bill of Rights as the drafters intended, and we must insist that rights and liberties be preserved, protected, and strengthened. We must argue for the continued primacy of this Country as a sovereign, independent Nation State and we must insist that the federal Government’s first order of business, as servants of the American people, is to see to the needs of and well-being of, and security and safety of the American people. And, who are the American people? They are the citizens of this Country and those citizens, the American people, do not include anyone who resides here illegally, whatever that person's motive or circumstance for being here. And, no individual who resides elsewhere has a right to emigrate to this Country simply because that person seeks to live here, for good or for ill; and no one who has entered this Country illegally, whether consciously or through no fault of their own, can demand, as a matter of right, as a matter of law, the right to remain here. For law is not ad hoc. If Congress deigns to allow illegal aliens to remain here, then Congress must refrain from granting such individuals, citizenship. For, to grant citizenship to those who have consciously or not ignored our law, or who claim an exception to law that does not presently exist in law will serve only to destroy our system of laws. To change law or to ignore law on a whim sets a poor precedent and such action, in the seeming moral sense of it, will destroy this Country from within.We must hold to our core values. We must not be seduced into accepting notions of moral and legal relativism and we must not fall prey to historical revisionism. These notions are poisonous, pernicious, debilitating. We are a People with one common language, English. No Nation has remained a separate and distinct Nation State that has inculcated, internalized a notion of bilingualism or multilingualism or that has abided bilingualism or multilingualism.No one, whether inside or outside Government, shall indoctrinate the American people. Each American citizen has a right to free expression and to freely express his or her mind. That an individual may wish to express an idea or to possess a physical item that another individual may personally dislike, or even abhor, so what of it? The founders of our free Republic and the framers of our Constitution did not undertake to institute or to insinuate into the natural and fundamental rights and liberties of the American people a notion of “political correctness.” Such a notion is of modern invention and vintage, designed to serve an ulterior purpose. Indeed, had the founders of our Republic thought of such an absurd concept at all they would undoubtedly have held political correctness to be decidedly politically incorrect. Nothing is more devastating or destructive to the citizenry of this Nation or, for that matter, to the citizenry of any nation state, than the sins of hypocrisy and sanctimony. Unfortunately, both are in abundance in this Nation. We can for that thank the arrogance of mainstream media and of those with power and money and influence, both here and abroad, who wish to dictate a mode of thought the rest of us are obliged to adhere to. The American people should be particularly wary of those legislators and those presumptuous “elites” who bandy about such expressions as “rule of law,” and “living Constitution,” and “open borders,” and “citizen of the world” and “job creator,” and “commonsense gun laws,” and “social Darwinism, and “identity politics,” and “political correctness.” These expressions, and there are others, have become trite and dangerous clichés, shorthand simplistic sloganeering, that are either misunderstood and therefore misused, or are otherwise given to suggest or convey something overtly positive, even exemplary, when, in fact, their utilization is meant to harm the American citizen, meant to harm you! Always be mindful of seemingly noble sounding and high-minded verbiage thrown out to the masses for consumption like so much popcorn and roasted peanuts and cotton candy. Be observant, be cautious, think critically before throwing your lot in with everyone else simply because everyone else is “doing it” or “believing it.” You are no longer in high school. There is no longer any need for you to belong to this or that “clique,” in order to "fit in."The framers of the Constitution glorified the right of the individual to be individual and to accept personal responsibility for one’s actions. Our sacred rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights are a testament to that fact. That is our birthright. The right of free speech; freedom of association; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. These are not mere platitudes. These are a few of the most important natural rights, codified in the Bill of Rights. They are absolute and unconditional, and they are slowly being eroded. Americans should consider, critically, how the words of a news commentator, or of a Hollywood star, or of a mega-sports star, or of a legislator, or of a financier, or of a government bureaucrat, or of a highly paid comic on nighttime  television meant to cajole or persuade Americans would impinge on or infringe those rights and liberties before you throw your lot in with them. For you may be hoodwinked into giving up everything of real consequence._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A COMIC BOOK NEWSPAPER CREATES A COMIC BOOK WEAPON: USA TODAY'S "CHAINSAW" GUN

TO TRUST THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TO DENY TRUTH AND, MORE, IT IS TO FORFEIT FAITH IN ONE’S OWN GOOD JUDGMENT

A RELOOK AT CHAINSAWS AND GUNS

“A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards, as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.” ~ in Culture and Value, by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Early to Mid-Twentieth Century British-Austrian Philosopher, translated from the German by Peter Winch“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” Ascribed to Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United StatesThree and one-half years ago, the Arbalest Quarrel published an article titled, “Of Chainsaws and Guns.” Ammoland Shooting Sports News posted the article under the title, “Time to Ban ‘Assault Saws’ – Commonsense Chainsaw Laws.” "Of Chainsaws and Guns" is satire, but the purpose in our drafting and posting it was and is deadly serious. We illustrated and demonstrated, through example, how perceptions form beliefs and how beliefs create reality—a reality that is amorphous, fluid, ever-changing, shifting with the currents of time and circumstance and the demands of those who dare control us, the American citizenry. Yet, contrary to this wisdom, the public is told that reality is based on truth, that truth is based on facts, and that facts, posited in reality, are concrete constants, readily ascertainable; never changing, never shifting, never subject to prevailing moods and circumstance of the populace.Guns—the public is told, and forever reminded, through the constant chime and cacophony of the mainstream media chorus that obviously abhors guns and that frowns upon, even detests those Americans who choose to exercise their fundamental, natural right to possess them—are the incarnation of evil; invidious; disgusting. The mainstream media perceives chainsaws, too, as ominous, demonic, inherently, intrinsically evil—dangerous, menacing, quick to bite the hand that would wield them and corrupting those that would possess them. Lo, what has come to pass is the dubious marriage of “gun and chainsaw”—bespeaking an unparalleled horror—a smirking grimace of evil.We should not be surprised, then, that those elements in society that loathe guns and gun ownership would take an unspeakable tragedy and use it to their advantage. The comic book that holds itself out as a legitimate newspaper, USA Today, took a semiautomatic rifle and added a “chainsaw bayonet” to it. USA Today was compelled to issue a "clarification." See, "USA Today issues a clarification after depicting a rifle with a 'chainsaw bayonet'", in Business Insider. If USA Today intended this to be amusing, it had the opposite effect. And, if USA Today did this in an unabashed attempt to create fear and horror in the mind of its target audience toward guns, USA  Today created indignation instead.Whatever the publishers and editors at USA Today intended, through the incongruous marriage of chainsaw and gun, USA Today was evidently alluding to the 1976 horror film, the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” as should be clear to devotees of horror movies. In this low budget silly, comic horror film, the antagonist, referred to as Leatherface--whose face is hidden behind a frightening "leather" mask to hide an equally horrifying visage--uses a chainsaw to wreak havoc on innocent young men and women. There is no humanity in Leatherface. The person wielding the chainsaw isn’t distinguished from the implement. Rather, Leatherface and chainsaw are one creature—a horrific amalgamation of flesh and machine, mindlessly, aimlessly, killing all those who happen, unfortunately, to cross his path.Coming on the heels of the deadly Texas Baptist Church shooting, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the publisher and editors of the USA Today evidently thought and hoped and intended that creating a caricature of a semiautomatic rifle, through a ludicrous and hideous merger of firearm and chainsaw, carrying unmistakable hints to the man/creature “Leatherface,” would spark fear and abhorrence and loathing toward firearms in the public mind and that it would stoke public outrage and condemnation toward and over guns and toward those who desire to exercise their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. For some Americans it might, indeed, have had the effect. If so, that was the point of creating the caricature of semiautomatic rifle married to a chainsaw. The unspoken words, created through the image, is of a fiendish figure, running amok, whose one purpose, whose only purpose in life is to commit murder and mayhem and to do so in a vividly graphic and gruesome manner. Killer and implement become one object, one thing--indistinguishable.But, for most Americans, as soon became clear to the publishers of USA Today, the caricature they created did not have the desired, intended effect; for, while the cartoon image of rifle and chainsaw sparked outrage, the outrage was directed, not to guns, but toward the newspaper itself--opening the paper up to public ridicule, a ridicule richly deserved. But, the USA Today doesn’t care. Not content to report the news, the writers and editors of the USA Today and writers and editors and commentators of similar mainstream media sources seek shamelessly to make news, peppering news accounts with salacious, unsubtle emotive spurts, aiming to persuade the public, rather than to inform the public. These mainstream media organizations disturbingly use their "news" vehicles to manipulate public thought, urging public action, with the goal of compelling policy makers to remove firearms from the hands of the citizenry, shamelessly baiting and attacking anyone who does not come on board with the game plan.

FAKE (PHONY) NEWS VERSUS TRUTH IN NEWS REPORTING

Pontius Pilate, we are told, posed to Jesus, this question: “Quid Est Veritas” ((“What is Truth” or “What is the Truth”) (John chapter 18, verse 38)). Did Pontius Pilate ask the question in jest? Did Pilate intend the question as nothing more than a rhetorical, perfunctory gibe? Most commentators believe this to be so; yet, perhaps, Pontius Pilate did not intend the question as an immodest quip at all. Perhaps he posed the question as a profound, serious inquiry into what is an abstruse, difficult, philosophical concept, surmising that, of all individuals on Earth, Jesus, alone, could enlighten him and that Pilate sought that enlightenment.As seekers of truth ourselves, we at the Arbalest Quarrel, believe that Pontius Pilate truly sought to understand this notion, this idea, this concept of ‘Truth.’The mainstream media, we are told, with an air of confident certitude shown by those who work for it and who operate in it—denigrating and disdaining those who operate in the alternative media sphere—claims to understand truth, and seeks to convey truth to the target audiences and that it is they, who work in the mainstream media, rather than those who work for alternative media sources, who see themselves as best equipped to perceive "the truth" and, so, claim sole right to convey the truth--but truth as they perceive truth, which they understands to be the truth--to the American public. So, it follows that those who work in the mainstream media feel they alone should be permitted to speak and write  on contemporary news subjects as they alone are guardians of and heralds of the truth. But such belief in their own certitude is the height of arrogance. Obviously, the mainstream media is loathe to compete with alternative media upstarts. But, for all their smug complacency, those who work in the mainstream media do not understand the concept of ‘truth’ at all, even as they surmise that they do.We begin with this presupposition: the concept truth, contrary to the glib certitude of the mainstream media toward the concept, is not a thing easy to grasp; nor, for that matter, is truth easy to come by. The mainstream media says that truth is a concept easily understood and that it is based on hard, cold, concrete fact. This suggests that truth exists when it coheres or corresponds to the facts. But, what is a ‘fact.’ A ‘fact’ is no less easy to comprehend, on analysis, than truth. Truth, and its obverse, falsity, are tied to propositions, not to facts, whatever a “fact” is. If there is a common thread running from a proposition—a declarative statement—to a fact, what is it but what common convention decrees. The mainstream media intends to have a lock on what that common convention is. Those that work for mainstream media organizations desire to tell a person, the American citizen, what that American citizen should believe, what it is that the American citizen is expected to believe and ought to believe—wherein and whereof, then, the truth consists, wherein and whereof the truth can be found; of what the truth, truly consists of; of what the truth, truly, is.Those individuals who work for mainstream media organizations delude themselves if they think they espouse truth. They delude themselves because they mistakenly think that what they assert happens to cohere with or correspond to concrete facts when their written or spoken expositions merely expose their own biases, their own attitudes, their own belief systems. But these belief systems have nothing to do with the world, nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with truth, nothing to do with “facts.” Still, they take their written and verbal assertions to be authoritative gospel about the world, about the way the world is, about the way the world works, about reality, about truth. They either pretend or delude themselves into believing that their belief system coheres or corresponds with reality. But, their belief system, which infuses their written or verbal expositions, is not equivalent to or equated with the world, with reality, with truth, with facts, with a state of affairs. It is really nothing more than their fanciful notion of the world, of reality, of truth; and that belief system simply coheres with or corresponds to their personal values, their normative belief system; nothing more. Thus, they confuse the idea of the way the world is with the idea of the way they think the world ought to be, taking the public along for the ride—insisting that the public come along for the ride. They seek to thrust their belief system about the world—which is nothing more than their perception of reality, their personal false conception of truth about the world—upon everyone else, namely, the American public. They seek to thrust a simulacrum of truth on the public, compelling the public to accept the simulacrum as reality. It isn’t, and never was, and never can be. Truth and falsity are, in the final analysis, tied to propositions, not to things. One never can remove the veneer of perception to reality. Only God can remove the veneer. Only the Creator can see World as the thing in and of itself.So, the mainstream media, for all its heralding of truth in the news is not a source of truth at all. The most perceptive agents working for the mainstream media may know this and, therefore, may not actually delude themselves into believing that they are reporting “truth.” The most perceptive are not interested in reporting truth anyway, if such were even possible.

THE GOAL OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TO CONVEY, TO INSERT, TO IMPRINT IN THE MIND OF ITS TARGET AUDIENCE, A WAY OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD—CREATING AN APPEARANCE OF THE WORLD THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY THE WORLD IS. THE GOAL OF THOSE WHO WORK IN AND FOR THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TO MISLEAD AND TO DECEIVE THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY AND TO DISGUISE THEIR INTENTIONS WHICH, UPON CLOSE EXAMINATION IS DELITERIOUS TO THE WELL-BEING OF OUR NATION, AS AN INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION STATE AND IS HARMFUL TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE NATION'S CITIZENRY.

The goal of the mainstream media is to convey a way of looking about the world upon its target audience. Sometimes this is done consciously. Often, it is not. This has absolutely nothing to do about the way the world is. And this has nothing to do with a quest for truth. It has everything to do with urging the public to march willingly behind the policy makers in government who have, themselves, no idea of the way the world is either, and would not care to know the way the world is even if they could catch a glimpse of the way the world really is, beyond the veneer of perception. Policy makers simply desire to shape the world in a way consistent with their policy objectives. The public for its part has no say in the matter, but is led by the nose, through the machinations of the mainstream media to believe that it agrees with the policy objectives of government policy makers when, rather, the public is merely conditioned through propaganda to believe it is giving its unfettered consent.The mainstream media is a conglomerate of propagandists, not journalists. The job of the mainstream media, through its legion of reporters, editors, analysts, commentators, and “experts,” is in the business to impose a world view on the public. The job of the mainstream media is not to educate; nor is it to inform the public. Contrary to its declarations, the mainstream media is not in business to provide information to the American citizen in order that each American citizen can derive his or her own conclusion, from the information given. No! The job of the mainstream media is to misinform the public and to misdirect it, in the same vein as a stage magician or illusionist, tricking its audience into believing that what it sees is truth—predicated on reality—when in fact the public is only being exposed to a chimera, a charade—something taken to be reality that is really nothing more than a fiction—a misperception of reality, and one that, on balance, is altogether inconsistent with the American's citizen's own personal desires, hopes, security, and well-being.The reporters, editors, and commentators of the mainstream media seek to misdirect the target audience like the magician, like the illusionist. The mainstream media seeks to shape beliefs and, therein, to shape one’s perception of reality—a fabrication, a template that the mainstream media focuses on the fabric of a person’s mind. Through manipulation of perception, these propagandists, on behalf of government, seek to form and to transform attitudes and beliefs. They do this through misinformation, disinformation, and non-information. They do it through confabulation and by manipulation of data. They do it through psychological devices designed to stir emotion. They use rhetorical flourishes and deliberate fallacious reasoning. These propagandists mold and shape public attitudes like so much clay wielded by a sculptor.

GUNS ARE NOT EVIL BUT FOR SO SAYING MAKES IT SO.

The public is told that guns are evil. The public is told that guns make good people, bad, and that they make bad people, worse. These propagandists—pretending to be journalists—use tragedy to their advantage—immerse the public in the filth and muck of it, repeating, incessantly, hypnotically, the same mantra, the same “talking points,” the same images and messaging played on and on in the printed medium and over the airwaves, a vicious, endless loop—cementing a bizarre perception of the world, of “truth” about the world in the public’s mind. The “truth” about the world that the mainstream media conveys is that the root cause of violence in America is tied to guns. These mainstream media image makers thread normative concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, through their “news” accounts, transforming ostensible neutral news accounts into disingenuous opinion editorials. The mainstream media image makers do this for the specific purpose of  swaying public mood and temperament; for the purpose of persuading public sentiment toward their cause; for the purpose of disciplining the masses and controlling their actions; and for urging public conformity to policy objectives they, rather than the public, champion. These image makers decide when it is right and ripe to make the public weep; when it is proper to make the public angry; when it is appropriate to move the public toward action. These image makers are adept at moving the public to believe, albeit wrongly, that such negative beliefs the public holds, say, toward guns, emanate from within the public consciousness itself, rather than outwardly, as such beliefs really do, from the image makers themselves--as a projection emanating from the propagandists' own verbal and written subconscious commands, mapped and imprinted onto the mind of the subject—the target audience, the American citizenry. Negative attitudes toward guns have, then, as their genesis, external psychological conditioning. Such negative attitudes do not exist inherently in the individual but what is injected into the mind of the recipient audience.These propagandists of the mainstream media insert, like a hypodermic needle into the brain—ludicrous notions—memes—about and toward inanimate objects. The public is encouraged to believe, wrongly, that negative thoughts about guns are of the public’s own making. They are not. Still, the public is directed by the propagandists to seek revenge against the salient culprit—the gun. The public is told, as well, that any individual can go off the deep-end and that because no one can know for certain who that will be and when that might happen, therefore everyone is suspect. Everyone’s rights are suspended because everyone is guilty of “precrime.” The average American citizen is treated as a random bit of dangerous energy whose impulses must be checked. Thus, the Deep State Government bureaucrats and policy makers believe it necessary to curb, to curtail that person’s natural, fundamental rights; to curb freedom--to do this in order to better control the masses.It becomes necessary to watch a citizen’s every thought, the citizen’s every deed. People, thus, begin to doubt themselves. That is by design. People begin to doubt their own sense of self; their own sense of self-worth; their own sense of self-control. They look for something outside themselves to protect them from themselves. They look to government for the answers. This is what government wants. This is what mainstream media is designed to do. The public looks to government as a balm for their worries, for their concerns. Self-doubt is the new reality, the new truth.The Bill of Rights is denigrated, must be denigrated. For the Bill of Rights is grounded in the sanctity of the individual. It is grounded in self-reliance and personal responsibility; maximizing freedom of action and minimizing government control over one’s actions. The Bill of Rights is dangerous to Order in the World--dangerous to the New World Order. The Bill of Rights is deemed the antithesis of truth. It does not fit in with the new reality; it does not fit in with the way the World is supposed to be. It does not fit in with this New World Order—a phrase that the mainstream media, once avoided referring to, but is now beginning to insert in its news coverage, in its news analysis, in its news commentary. Why is that?Is the mainstream media, on behalf of its internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist benefactors setting the stage for the final act, the coup de grâce to the Nation, notwithstanding that its darling child, Hillary Clinton, failed—failed her handlers miserably—to assume the mantel of the U.S. Presidency? Is not the mainstream media doing what it must, what it has been told to do: set the stage for the removal of the American people’s choice for the U.S. Presidency, Donald Trump? Is this not deemed necessary by the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist community so it can proceed with the final step in the creation of a new reality, a New World Order, demanding, then, the de facto dismantling of the United States as a sovereign entity, a sovereign Nation and, thence, accomplishing with that, the destruction of the very notion of the sanctity of and reality of the concept of the “Nation State” and of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual that resides in it?Public attitudes are synchronized with and to public policy. Remove guns from the citizenry! Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is undercut. Control Speech! Thus, the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause is weakened. Collect and collate and analyze and synthesize all private information and communication! Thus, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as codified in the Fourth Amendment is undermined. And the public comes to believe that this is all for the good, that this is what it seeks and what it really wants. The public fails to see that it has been played for a fool; that it has been hoodwinked all along.The American people fail to see that negative thoughts toward the Bill of Rights is not of their own making; and never was. They fail to see that they have been led like willing sheep, to accept policy that they have never had a hand in making. They willingly give up their birthright and walk willy-nilly into the sausage machine, to be ground up and spewed out and stuffed into casing for consumption by the internationalist trans-nationalist globalist “elites.”

IF WE LOSE OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND IF WE LOSE OUR PRIVACY, OUR NATION, OUR FREE REPUBLIC  WILL DIE A SLOW DEATH; BUT IF WE LOSE OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, OUR NATION, OUR FREE REPUBLIC DIES INSTANTLY, INSTANTANEOUSLY, IRREVOCABLY.

As much as the mainstream media would like Americans to see themselves as part of a larger international community that does not embrace gun ownership and possession, it must be understood that Americans are not like the populace of other Nations, and choose not to be. We are not Australians, nor Canadians, nor Brits, nor Mexicans. We are not Spaniards, nor Portuguese, nor French, nor Germans. Our firearms and our cherished Second Amendment are not to be swept aside and under, into the dustbin of history. And those Americans who own and possess firearms and who sanctify our right to keep and bear arms are not to be mocked. The ruthlessly powerful, obscenely wealthy, and inordinately secretive internationalists and trans-nationalist globalists who operate silently behind the scenes, through the Deep State and through the mainstream media, know that, so long as the Second Amendment remains intact, the sovereignty of our Nation and of our People, cannot falter; cannot fall. Thus, they work toward the eradication of the Second Amendment.To do this, the tactic of the internationalist, globalist “elite” is to manipulate public thought—to manipulate perception—to create a reality that the American public ought never to accept—namely, the destruction of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State; the destruction of our fundamental, natural rights, codified in our Bill of Rights; the destruction of the glorification of the individual spirit, and of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual’s right to be and remain individual; lord over his or her own well-being and destiny. The right of the people to keep and bear arms keeps is not mere slogan. It is an assertion of the indomitability of American spirit and pride. It is a statement of the sovereignty of the American citizenry over government. It is a reminder to those who serve the American public that ultimate authority rests in and with the American citizenry. And it is a declaration of defiance directed to those secretive, powerful forces that seek to crush America and Americans into submission. The Second Amendment must ever remain omnipresent and omnipotent. It is the singular truth of what it means to be an American citizen. It underlies our core values, our history, our culture, our singular and unique identity. This is our reality and it is not to be tinkered with or tampered with.Those that mock us, and who mock our beliefs and who openly and shamelessly sneer at our President, and those who seek to thrust a new reality upon us, and who dare inject a new “truth” into our being, into our very soul, should keep well in mind that any attempt to undercut the authority of the American People and to undermine the supremacy of our Constitution, and to denigrate and warp our Bill of Rights and our Constitution, shall incite in the American people a fury that will not be, will never be constrained.The use of clever, adroit psychological programming and propaganda will not fool us. Gifts of money or sweetmeats will not tempt or sway or soften or corrupt us. Pabulum in the way of entertainment will not distract us. And if, ultimately, these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites” become frustrated with us and feel obliged to resort to force of arms to break us, we will meet such force with force of arms of our own. For we know full well the mechanism of force of arms, as did the founders of our free Republic, the framers of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights; and we will not shirk from using such force of arms as necessary to preserve the soul of our Nation and to preserve the sanctity of our own individual American soul and spirit._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK TIMES BLAMES GUN FOR LUNATIC’S MURDEROUS RAMPAGE AT BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL IN NEW YORK CITY

NEW YORK TIMES BLAMES GUN FOR LUNATIC’S MURDEROUS RAMPAGE AT BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL IN NEW YORK CITY

Introduction to multipart series article on New York Times fake news story

“Lux et Veritas”: “Light and Truth.” Don’t expect to find either in the New York Times.

After the tragic incident at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, on Friday, June 30, 2017, when a lunatic, Henry Bello, an unlicensed, Nigerian-born “doctor” and irate employee of the Hospital—let go for good cause—sexual harassment—went on a shooting spree, killing one person, a physician, and seriously wounding several others before taking his own life, the New York Times wasted no time, casting blame and aspersion on the party the Times holds to be truly responsible for the crimes of murder and attempted murder: a firearm, variously and ineptly described by the newspaper reporters writing the story, Marc Santora and Al Baker, as an “assault rifle”—which it wasn’t or as an “assault weapon,” which it couldn’t be, since there is, really, no such weapon. The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is nothing more than a legal fiction, drummed up by antigun media sorts, for psychological effect, and used by antigun groups and like-minded politicians to deny Americans their fundamental and natural right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The firearm—that the “health care provider,” Henry Bello, used to deprive one health care provider, a physician, of her life, and who then seriously injured several more health care providers, attempting to deprive them of their life and well-being—would be described simply but at least accurately as a semiautomatic rifle, and more descriptively and accurately as an AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle, manufactured by Anderson Manufacturing, lawfully modified by a licensed New York gunsmith to conform to New York State law.The Times reporters, Santora and Baker, clearly blame the rifle for the horrific crimes committed by a lunatic, in whom blame really, and solely, rests. The blame that Santora and Baker thrust more on the M4 AR-15 Rifle, and less on Bello, is tacit but nonetheless clear enough, as the reporters argue that, but for the rifle, the tragedy that occurred at the Hospital would not have taken place.Santora and Baker create a fairy tale disguised as a news story to suggest the rifle is the principal perpetrator—not Bello, who pulled the trigger, because Bello couldn’t help himself. You see, Bello is, or rather was—before the rifle turned on him or before Bello turned the rifle on himself—mentally ill.The Times newspaper in a follow-up article to the deadly Bronx-Lebanon shooting, posted on-line, on July 3, 2017, and published, in the print edition of the paper, on July 4, 2017, with the title, “Despite Strict Gun Law, Doctor was able to Buy Assault rifle,” makes abundantly clear that the M4-AR 15 rifle must be perceived as the central character and the main culprit in the incident as the reporters, Santora and Baker, who wrote the story, focus their attention on the rifle, rather than on Bello. That isn’t to say the Times reporters don’t also focus their attention on other culpable players in the tragic incident. For, Santora and Baker mention others who abetted the M4-AR15 rifle—the principal assailant—and who abetted Bello, who was more along for the ride.The reporters cast a wide net. They blame the gunsmith who modified the weapon to conform to the New York Safe Act so that a New York gun dealer could lawfully sell the weapon. They also blame the gun dealer who lawfully sold the modified M4-AM 15 to Bello. And, finally, the Times reporters blame the NY Safe Act, itself, for the tragedy that occurred at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital because, as the Times reporters strongly suggest, the SAFE Act, strict as it is, isn’t strict and restrictive enough—not nearly strict and restrictive enough.The Arbalest Quarrel explains in a series of in depth articles that follow this introduction, previously posted as one, unbroken essay on the Arbalest Quarrel website, and to be posted in multiple parts on Ammoland Sporting Shooting Sports News, how the New York Times’ implicit bias toward and against firearms generally and against civilian possession and ownership of firearms particularly colors its news accounts so that what the public takes to be factual news coverage of specific events, appearing in the news section of the publication, is really an opinion piece, masked as a factual news piece, that really belongs in the editorial section of the newspaper.The New York Times newspaper, as with other mainstream media organizations, makes much of the notion of “fake news,” when vigorously attacking alternative media sources, but never once admits that the Times newspaper, itself, is often a main source of its own “fake news.” Whence cometh "Fake News?"“Fake news” is a thing conceived or contrived by the mainstream media as a device or conceit to attack alternative news and commentary sources, which the mainstream media perceives, and, admittedly and rightly so, as a mechanism to counteract mainstream news media influence over the American public."Fake news" is an expression that has, through overuse, principally by the mainstream news media that first commenced use of it, become nothing more than cliché.  It is the mainstream news media that is truly the perpetrator of "fake news" and has used it to sway public opinion. But, what is this thing, referred to as “fake news," really?”What “fake news” really refers to is fabricated stories. It is not merely false news—in the sense that the reporters or distributors of the news are delivering false news of events inadvertently as they are not aware that the news is false—but a more serious affront to conscience, where the reporters or distributors of the news deliberately conceive and distribute contrived stories—stories that are specifically designed to deceive the target audience--to induce, in the target audience, false perceptions of events—stories designed to mislead the target audience and to sway public opinion in a specific direction, a direction designed to further the aims and goals of mainstream media’s powerful wealthy benefactors—those forces at work, behind the scenes, whose aims are antithetical to the aims of and antithetical to the best interests of this Nation and of its people. The mainstream media has, accordingly, evolved into a propaganda machine—a well-oiled and well-funded tool of those forces that seek to undermine the rights and liberties of the American people—especially the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.While the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of the Press precludes any attempt by the Government to abridge that Freedom, there is nothing in the First Amendment that precludes the Press from presenting biased reports of the news. But bias in the news is what the American public receives daily from the mainstream media. A prime example of implicit bias in the news is seen in mainstream media’s attempt, to sway public opinion on the matter of civilian ownership and possession of firearms.In the Times article, “Despite Strict Gun Law, Doctor Was Able to Buy Gun,” that we deconstruct, we point to specific factual errors made pertaining to the firearm the Times reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker,   talk about in the story. To those individuals who might assert that the Arbalest Quarrel is merely quibbling, we point out that factual errors about guns is a serious matter.If the mainstream media attempts to make a case for restrictive gun laws, it should, at the very least, know of what it speaks. But, obviously, the mainstream media knows little about the technical aspects of firearms that it writes about. Worse, it doesn’t care. Worst of all, the mainstream media concocts a mythology about guns that has absolutely no basis in reality and is designed to induce, in the public, fear and loathing toward firearms and to mistrust those who support and respect the right embodied in the Second Amendment that the framers of the U.S. Constitution felt strongly enough about to set in stone.The mainstream media, which includes the NY Times newspaper, apparently believes it can, when it chooses, be sloppy when talking about the news, and the Times is often sloppy. Now, it is one thing for a news source to provide erroneous information about firearms out of ignorance, and we see that constantly in articles about firearms. Sloppiness in news articles may be the result of ignorance or it may be the result of a rush to make a deadline. In either event such ignorance may be forgiven if a correction or retraction is in the offing. However, when a major news source, that reaches millions of Americans, makes the same error over and over, it is reasonable to conclude, and we do conclude, that erroneous remarks about firearms are the result of something more than ignorance or a casual disregard toward reporting on them and about them. What we are seeing is nothing less than a deliberate, callous, deceitful, orchestrated program of conscious deception, to make the public induce Americans to relinquish their fundamental right to keep and bear arms—our birthright.“Truth in reporting” on the news involves more than disgorging statements that ostensibly cohere with or correspond to specific “facts” about the world.A trustworthy news organization should ever be mindful of the subliminal effect the narrative of a story has on the audience because the narrative—the theme of the story—is always inextricably intertwined in and linked to the statements made.Narratives of articles appearing in the news section of a paper should always be functionally neutral. That is not always possible, of course. Still, a reputable news organization should—indeed, must—strive to achieve neutrality in its news accounts. That should always be the goal of any news organization. That is what news organizations and publications, such as the New York Times, will pointedly say that it delivers. But that is a double lie. The Times does not invariably provide accurate news accounts of the events and subjects its reporters write about even if it says it does. And, with mainstream media news accounts pertaining to firearms, the public rarely, if ever, sees accurate, neutral reporting of the news—for that isn’t the aim of the Times or of other mainstream news organizations and publications. We, personally, have never seen neutral accurate reporting about firearms in mainstream media.The Bronx-Lebanon Hospital tragedy is merely the latest, or certainly one of the latest of serious tragedies to occur in this Nation. But, by making the firearm the deceased killer, Henry Bello, used in the shooting, the focus of the story, rather than Henry Bello, himself, the reporters suggest that the firearm has a will of its own. The reporters induce an irrational fear of firearms in the mind of the public.You would think that Times reporters would attempt to alleviate fear of guns—as guns are merely inanimate objects. Instead, the Times Reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, magnify that fear, intensify it, suggesting that fear of guns is a healthy response to guns—suggesting that guns have a will of their own and that will—an evil will—is one that influences the wielder of the firearm to commit heinous acts, such as those committed by Henry Bello. It is a ridiculous notion, but one that we see conveyed over and over again in the mainstream media--usually tacitly, but sometimes, bizarrely enough, overtly too.This irrational fear of guns is broadcast in the mainstream media, throughout the Country. Today a child in public school who so much as points a finger at another child, suggestive of a gun, and says, “bang,” is forthwith immediately suspended and that child’s parents are contacted by the School Board officials who then encourage the parents to seek psychiatric care for the child. Really? Who is it that is in dire need of psychiatric care, here? Is it the child? Is it the young child who likes to play “soldier” or “cowboys and Indians” with a toy gun, or is the members of the School Board who have been conditioned and brainwashed by false narratives they see on “news” programs or that they read about in newspapers, such as the New York Times?A retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel, Jeff Cooper, has coined a word to describe this irrational fear of guns—a fear that manifests, in the mind of a susceptible person, that a firearm is a sentient being, harboring evil intentions—that a firearm is a demon. This irrational fear of guns is called, “hoplophobia,” and this fear is not ameliorated by mainstream media news accounts. Rather, mainstream media news accounts deliberately generate this fear. Such behavior by seemingly reputable news organizations is reprehensible, unforgivable.If publications like the New York Times intend to thrust their animosity toward firearms and toward civilian ownership of firearms on the public, then there is a place for the publications to do so. It is called the editorial section of a newspaper. Opinions belong in the editorial section of a newspaper, not in the news section. Reporting on the news and commenting or reflecting on the news are two different things. The New York Times, as with many if not most other mainstream news publications and news broadcasting organizations, is notorious for intermingling and conflating news reporting and news commentary, suggesting, deviously, to the target audience, that, what happens to appear in the news section of its paper, is neutral news report, not opinion, when in fact, the New York Times and others of its ilk are deceiving those members of the public that do not and cannot see the difference—which even for astute communications and propaganda specialists—is not often readily discernible, except through careful analysis. This conflation of news reporting, on the one hand, and news commentary or news opinion, on the other, is by design. And the Times, unfortunately, isn’t the only mainstream news publication that does this. News commentary that appears in the editorial section of a newspaper is understood to be biased. That is fine. That is opinion, and the public knows or should know that opinion equates with implicit bias. Opinion is not expected to be neutral. And, implicit bias, when it isn’t cloaked as such, is acceptable, even welcomed. Public policy is grounded as much on opinion—about what a government should do—as much as by the events in the world that may require the development and implementation of policy to deal with those events. But when news is intertwined with opinion, as we see regularly in mainstream news publications and broadcasts, then news reports are “colored.” What is happening in the world becomes blended with what a particular reporter of the news believes is happening in the world—and that belief is always colored by one’s personal biases and values, and by ones hopes and fears and expectations, and all too often those beliefs are false.When assertions cohere with or correspond with facts, we say assertions are true. When assertions do not cohere with or correspond with facts, we say assertions are false. When assertions, true or not, are blended with value judgments, “ought” statements or “should” statements, such statements or assertions are not about the world. They are, rather, about one’s personal beliefs about the way the world ought to be, not the way the world is.Messrs. Santora and Baker have, in their “news article, made statements, knowingly or not, that are false. Worse, they have taken those false statements, predicated on their own false beliefs about firearms, and have concocted a fairy tale about guns. They have taken events, accurately reported about Bello, and about the NY Safe Act--factually true statements about the world--but, surreptitiously, blended those facts with fiction. They then draw tacit conclusions about reforming the NY Safe Act to make the Act ever more restrictive, consistent with both their personal distaste for firearms and with their false beliefs about them. Thus, they turn what is supposed to be a neutral news story into an opinion piece, but masked as a news story since it appears in the news section of the Times publication instead of in the editorial section of the paper. This is not acceptable, honorable, journalistic behavior, unfitting for any organization that prides itself “on all the news that’s fit to print.”The Arbalest Quarrel explains in detail exactly how Times Reporters Santora and Baker distort the news by inserting or injecting personal biases into their story, and, how, by tacitly arguing for reformation of the SAFE Act, consistent with their biases and false beliefs, they represent powerful interests in this Country and abroad, who seek to undermine the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The Arbalest Quarrel has attempted to contact Messrs. Santora and Baker, to defend their distortions about firearms. Mr. Bill Frady, host of the famed, “Lock N Load" Radio Show, has invited these two Times reporters to appear on his program. The Arbalest Quarrel would look forward to debating Messrs. Santora and Baker over the manner of their reporting and on assertions they make regarding the particulars of firearms and ammunition that they talk about in their article.If the New York Times wishes to engage in dialogue with us over the “gun” issue, the Arbalest Quarrel will be more than happy to do oblige. We would look forward to an open dialogue about the technical aspects of firearms, and the manner in which false information about firearms is delivered to the public. We would specifically like to engage the New York Times in a frank discussion over their news narratives that we see as no less than editorials and arguments for more restrictive gun laws, disguised as neutral news reports.As of the posting of this article on the Arbalest Quarrel weblog and on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, we have not heard back from the NY Times reporters.______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

SMART GUNS ARE NOT A SMART IDEA!

Stephen L. D’Andrilli, on behalf of the Arbalest Quarrel, a weblog devoted to educating the public on the meaning of State and federal firearms’ legislation, will attend “The New York City Smart Gun Symposium.” The Symposium will be held at the Brooklyn Borough Hall on August 2^nd, from 11am to 2pm. The address is: Brooklyn Borough Hall 209 Joralemon St, Brooklyn, NY 11201.Stephen D’Andrilli looks forward to joining the discussion. Stephen knows gun issues. He is happy to explain the Arbalest Quarrel’s position on “smart guns” and is available to answer questions participants in the Symposium may have about Arbalest Quarrel’s position on smart guns.Expecting questions the Arbalest Quarrel presents the following paper, directed to the politics behind the antigun establishment’s push for smart guns.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL’S POSITION ON “SMART GUNS”

Among the latest restrictive gun proposals are those involving adoption of so-called “smart guns”—the subject of this symposium. But, when considering adoption of smart guns—or any restrictive gun proposal—we must not lose sight of one important fact. Antigun ideologues shape thoughts, impressions, and beliefs about guns through propagation of lies. They broadcast lies to the masses through meaningless sound bites, repeated constantly through the mainstream media. Take the expression, ‘smart gun.’ The expression, ‘smart gun,’ is a derivative of the coined word, ‘smart phone’ and, not improbably, ‘smart bomb.’ Antigun ideologues seek to create an impression about smart guns that is at odds with the truth about them.But, what is a smart gun? NRA explains. “Conceptually, a ‘smart’ gun is one that incorporates technology that would prevent the gun from being used by an unauthorized person. Currently, no viable guns equipped with such technology exist.”Apart from technical matters relating to the production of smart guns, we must not lose sight of the political motivations percolating around smart guns.The expression ‘smart gun,’ as created and employed by antigun ideologues, is a meme, a mental virus. But what does the expression, ‘smart gun,’ suggest?Adding the adjective ‘smart’ to the noun, ‘gun,’ suggests to the mind—as those who coined the word and thrust it on the public consciousness, hope and obviously intended—that application of so-called smart gun technology to gun manufacturing makes a firearm in some sense better.To the antigun ideologue any gun that is not a ‘smart gun’ is, ipso facto, a ‘dumb’ gun. They don’t say this. That is implied. Consider why would someone want a simple, dumb phone, when one could do more with a smart phone? Similarly, who would want a dumb gun when a person can own and possess a smart gun? What kind of a firearm would any sensible person want if a person wishes to own and possess a firearm at all? Would that person want a smart gun or a dumb gun? These are the tacit questions posited by antigun ideologues.But, we must first ask: does adoption of smart technology to the production of guns truly produce a better gun? If so, in what way? We might analogize smart guns to smart phones. But the analogy between a smart phone and a smart gun is a false one. A user of a smart phone prefers a smart phone to a phone that does not incorporate smart technology because smart phone technology incorporates more features that its users want. But, with gun technology, the user isn’t looking for a device with multiple features and capabilities. In fact, simplicity generally, if not invariably, is preferred to complexity in gun technology.Of course, all guns employ technology of some sort. Firearms are technological instruments: from the earliest wheel locks and flintlocks to modern revolvers and semiautomatic weapons. But, if firearms don’t employ the new “smart” technology, they are deemed unsophisticated.The idea conveyed is that unsophisticated guns employ dumb technology. But, dumb in what sense? Are such guns dumb, as the proponents of smart guns may argue, because such guns are deemed unsafe? But, unsafe in what way? In what manner? And, unsafe to whom and under what circumstances? Antigun ideologues consider safety from the standpoint of preventing unauthorized use of firearms. That is one context. There are others.Are smart guns safer in handling or in operation, say, than guns that do not incorporate smart technology? Might not a smart gun, in an emergency, be unsafe where a dumb gun is safe? Suppose a law-abiding citizen and gun owner finds his smart gun failing to work in an emergency. Or suppose that, for the smart gun to work, the gun owner must engage multiple operations. Can the antigun ideologue continue to maintain justifiably, rationally, that the smart gun is after all a safe gun—as if safety, in one context—preventing unauthorized use of the gun—has overriding significance even if the gun doesn’t work at a time when the authorized gun owner needs the gun to work or if the smart gun requires the authorized gun owner to know the intricacies of his or her smart gun—at a time when the gun owner is in a stressful situation and is counting on the gun to work?      In some contexts, at least, the smart gun is truly the dumb gun and the dumb gun is really the smart gun. The antigun ideologue ought not to be surprised that the law-abiding gun owner places more assurance in, say, his or her stock Smith and Wesson revolver handgun or in his or her stock Glock semiautomatic pistol.The point is that a gun has little if any use if it isn’t reliable and if it can’t be utilized immediately and easily in an emergency.Reliability and ease of use of a device—any device—is certainly at least as important as safety. For, if a device isn’t reliable, of what use does it have. And, if a device isn’t easy to use—that is to say, if the device requires multiple gyrations on the part of its user before the user gets it to work—won’t that user prefer a simpler device.It isn’t coincidental that smart gun technology is being pushed on the public by those who oppose guns in civilian hands. Let’s not be coy about this. Antigun ideologues don’t want civilians to own and possess any gun. This is no secret. They’ll tell you that.Antigun ideologues push smart gun technology on the ground, as they argue, that smart guns are better guns than ordinary guns—dumb guns—that don’t incorporate smart technology. But that doesn’t mean antigun ideologues think smart guns are as reliable as dumb guns or that smart gun technology allows for ease of use.The word, ‘better,’ doesn’t necessarily imply ‘reliability’ or ‘ease of use.’ Antigun ideologues don’t know if smart guns are as reliable as guns that don’t incorporate smart technology. Indeed, they don’t know if smart guns are reliable at all. Frankly, they don’t care; nor do they care that smart guns are more intricate than guns that don’t incorporate the smart technology; nor do they care whether smart guns happen to be more difficult to operate than guns that do not incorporate the smart technology.Antigun ideologues’ aim is to render a gun inoperable if the gun falls into the wrong hands. That is what they want from a gun. That is the only thing they want and expect from a gun. Unfortunately, the concern of antigun ideologues does not extend to issues of reliability and ease of use for the authorized user—which are concerns certainly of importance to the authorized user. But, then, antigun ideologues are not individuals who seek to own and possess firearms. So, they would prefer that guns were merely props—unworkable devices, incapable of use by anyone.You will note that antigun ideologues don’t suggest that police and the military adopt smart technology in the weapons they use. Why is that? And, you don’t hear police departments and the military clamoring for the adoption of smart guns for their personnel. There is obviously a good reason for that.Now, antigun ideologues will invariably argue that the needs of the police and military differ from the needs of civilians. Regardless, one would expect, at the very least, that one’s firearm is reliable for the need at hand and allows for ease of use—no less so for the civilian than for the police officer and for the soldier.But antigun ideologues oppose civilian gun ownership on multiple grounds, including aesthetics. They argue that guns in the hands of civilians are unnecessary, unwholesome, dangerous, and even evil if one can legitimately call an inanimate object, “evil.”They seek to impose draconian gun laws, including application of unproven smart gun technology, on millions of rational, law-abiding, responsible gun owners. They wish to restrain and constrain the sacred right of millions of sane, rational, responsible law-abiding gun owners due to the reprehensible actions of criminals, lunatics, and terrorists among us who are routinely treated by the Obama Administration with “kid gloves.”Why should government be in the business of imposing smart gun technology on the public at all? If smart gun technology is to become commonplace in society, then that should come about because the gun buying public prefers it, even demands it. But demand or preference for a product or service in a capitalist society operates through the free market economy. If the gun-buying public wishes to own and possess smart guns, gun manufacturers will produce them. But government should not force gun manufacturers to manufacture guns they do not wish to make. And government should not restrict the buying options of the public to those firearms the public doesn’t wish to buy.Application of smart gun technology to firearms is not something law-abiding citizens who own and possess firearms want. It is, rather, something the Obama Administration—and antigun ideologues, who have no desire to own and possess a firearm themselves—seek to thrust on everyone else.Adoption of smart gun technology is not market driven; it is politically driven, based on personal bias, motivated by one segment of society’s personal agenda.If Americans wish to own and possess guns as is their natural right, as codified in the U.S. Constitution, on what legal ground—irrespective of personal morality, political ideology, aesthetic sensibility, or social consideration—might Congress or the State legislatures rely if they seek to compel Americans either to accept ‘smart gun’ technology or surrender—eventually and inevitably—their Constitutional right to possess firearms at all?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SHOULD SCHOOL TEACHERS BE ARMED? THE UFT DOESN’T THINK SO, BUT ONE EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TAXING TO TAX PAYERS.

CO-FOUNDER OF ARBALEST GROUP, LLC., RESPONDS TO UFT OPINION PIECE CONCERNING THE ARMING OF NEW YORK'S SCHOOL TEACHERS

The “United Federation of Teachers (UFT”), a New York City affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, posted an article in its  publication, Teacher, titled, “Gun Fight.” The article appeared in the May 5, 2016 edition of Teacher. The editorial takes aim at the notion that arming teachers to protect students is a bad idea.Stephen L. D’Andrilli, one of three founders of the weblog, the Arbalest Quarrel, was a licensed New York teacher and receives the UFT publication, Teacher.After reading the UFT Op-Ed, Stephen felt a need to respond and did so. Stephen’s response to the Op-Ed was published in the June 2, 2016 edition of Teacher, under the Editor's title, “Editorial shoots blanks.”Stephen's response to the UFT editorial appears, in full, below:“I am responding to your recent editorial (“Gunfight”). The question posed is whether allowing educators to bring firearms to K-12 schools in New York would protect students against gun violence. The editorial considers the question from the standpoint of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.In arguing that arming educators is a bad idea, a few hypothetical situations involving armed educators are presented; outcomes are postulated; and a tacit conclusion is drawn: educators should not be allowed to bring firearms to school.The scenarios are typical straw man arguments. Nothing substantive can be deduced from them. One may argue just as readily that an armed educator would likely successfully protect the lives of his or her students from an armed aggressor. The editorial’s hypotheticals amount to straw man arguments. Straw man arguments obfuscate. They do not elucidate. Any possibility follows from a false antecedent in a counterfactual.The editorial concludes by discussing another matter entirely: the need to provide adequate mental health care for deeply disturbed individuals is no more than a stopgap. The point does not address deeply disturbed individuals who slip through the cracks; nor does it address the issue of criminals and terrorists that threaten soft targets like schools.So, if the invasion of schools by armed lunatics, terrorists, or assorted criminals cannot be contained and, through time, becomes pervasive and, if educators are not armed, what is the alternative? There is one we can think of: an armed contingent of police officers, peace officers, or private armed security to protect students, faculty, and administrators in schools. That will work, but, what will it cost? One armed guard, as the editorial staff of New York Teacher admits, will, arguably, never be enough.”

STEPHEN D'ANDRILLI'S BIO

Stephen was President and CEO of two security consulting and criminological research firms. He was also a business partner in a New York City licensed indoor gun range. Stephen is a decorated veteran police officer of the New York City Police Department. While employed with the N.Y.P.D., Stephen earned three University degrees from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Stephen earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Police Science, a Master of Arts degree in Criminal Justice Administration and a Master in Public Administration degree.Later, Stephen served as an Adjunct Professor/Lecturer of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Stephen then served as a high school Social Studies Teacher for the New York City Department of Education and served as Dean and Athletic Coach for the Department. He is an expert in personal and corporate security.Stephen is a National Rifle Association Certified Firearms Instructor (pistol, rifle and shotgun) and Training Counselor, and is an active member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors. He has testified on firearms, crime, and self-defense before governmental committees and at governmental hearings, on many occasions.Stephen has written many articles on these subjects and has appeared on television and radio. Major national and international newspapers, magazines and professional journals have profiled Stephen. Stephen is passionate about the Constitution and passionate about the Bill of Rights, the cornerstone of the Republic. Stephen is aware the Bill of Rights is under attack. Stephen understands that Americans must defend the Bill of Rights if they are to protect and preserve their heritage.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES BRAZENLY ATTACK SECOND AMENDMENT DURING DEBATE

While it may seem a waste of words even to discuss the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential candidates’ positions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, some elucidation is in order since we can zero in on the current strategies each of the five Democratic candidates would employ for undermining the Second Amendment were that person elected to the Office of President. So, let us consider where each of the five candidates stand on the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as laid out during the October 13, 2015 Democratic Party Debate, held at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas.Well, none of the Democratic Party candidates serve as a supporter, much less an exemplar, of the Second Amendment. That, we know. But, if so, how can an American -- any American -- claim to represent all Americans who does not vow to uphold the “Bill of Rights” of the U.S. Constitution – all Ten of them, not Nine or Eight of them?Now, some might argue that Jim Webb, who, as the moderator, Anderson Cooper, pointed out, had, at one time, at least, received an “‘A’ rating from the NRA,” is, in fact a supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, Cooper asked Webb whether Webb would agree that arming more people is Webb’s answer to a mass shooting. Webb did not take the bait but said that there are two fundamental issues involved in this discussion and that both need to be respected. The first issue, Webb said, goes to the question “who should be kept from having guns.” Webb said that criminals, gang members, and those who are mentally incapacitated should not have access to guns. The second issue, Webb asserted, goes to the tradition in this Country. Webb pointed out that people have a right to have access to guns to protect their families from violence since they do not have bodyguards as those in high levels of Government do. Now, these assertions might suggest that Webb is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment but, if you carefully analyze what he said, Webb qualified and effectively undermined his position by arguing for more “background checks,” and he clearly asserted that mental health practitioners should share their patients’ medical information with Government.The use of background checks as well as the introduction of measures compelling mental health practitioners to divulge medical information that is subject to the doctor/patient privilege serve only to destroy the inherent right to privacy. And both measures result in secretive Government registration lists – all part of “Big Data” for the benefit of “Big Government.” So, if you think that Jim Webb is a devoted protector of Americans’ Second Amendment Right of the people to keep and bear arms and, as well, protector of Americans’ Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, you better think twice. Many viewers of the televised debate were taken in by Webb’s pronouncements, believing that he supports the Second Amendment. At one time, perhaps he did. As a Democratic candidate for President, he most certainly does not.Anderson Cooper then asked Bernie Sanders to address his position on guns. Cooper, pointed out – among other things – that Sanders had, at one time, shielded gun companies from lawsuits. Cooper suggested, without explicitly stating, that Sanders supports gun ownership. In his response Sanders corrected Cooper, beginning with Sanders' point that he had received a “D Minus” rating from the NRA -- shamelessly boasting to the American public that the NRA does not approve of Sanders’ position on “guns.”To exemplify the import of the “D-Minus” Rating, Sanders said that he had, since 1988, supported a ban on “assault weapons” – this coming from a man who also remarked that Vermont has virtually no gun control laws -- a curious addendum to Sanders' statement, indeed.Sanders also said that he has, through the years, supported instant background checks and that he ascribes to “doing away with this ‘terrible’ gun-show loophole.” He also said that we have to deal “aggressively" at the federal level, with straw man purchases. Finally, Sanders said that people who face mental health crises must get mental health counseling immediately.Anderson Cooper pressed Sanders on whether he wishes to shield gun companies from liability. Sanders replied, “of course not.” Sanders added that he does not believe that a gun shop owner who had legally sold a gun to a purchaser should be held accountable if a crime is committed with that gun. But, he added, where a gun shop owner or gun manufacturer had knowingly sold a gun to a criminal, then that gun shop owner or manufacturer should be held accountable.As with Webb, Sanders is arguing for mandatory mental health care intervention and the sharing of private medical records – even if this is only tacitly stated. Is this such a bad thing? Yes, it is!Since the distinction between non-serious mental health problems and serious mental health issues is nebulous at best, those Democrats, and Republicans, too, for that matter, who are jumping on the mental health care bandwagon, are essentially setting the stage for a gun ban impacting a tremendously large segment of the American population – a population consisting, conceivably of tens of millions of Americans. Moreover -- and it bears repeating -- the requirement that mental health care practitioners must share medical information with government officials absolutely destroys the sanctity of the doctor/patient privacy privilege and destroys, as well, the import and purport of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Anderson Cooper, obviously providing a leg up for Hillary Clinton, then asked Clinton whether she felt that “Bernie Sanders is tough enough on guns.” Hillary must have gotten a pleasant jolt out of that question, thinking to herself, “thank you Anderson Cooper.” She responded, “no, not at all!” Clinton pointed out that we lose ninety people a day to gun violence and that this has gone on for far too long. Clinton didn’t trouble herself to support the assertion with evidence. Clinton never does. Nor did Clinton bother to explain what groups of people are responsible for the gun violence. Clinton, as always, is notoriously vague. So, was Clinton referring to criminals as the source of gun violence or was she referring to law-abiding citizens? Anderson Cooper, obligingly, never bothered to ask Clinton for clarification.Clinton – now on a roll – she must have loved that Cooper brought up the issue of "guns" – said, “it is time the entire Country stood up against the NRA.” Clinton got a large round of applause for that last remark. Clinton is always at her best when posturing to her audience who are satisfied receiving choice sound bites from her – never demanding cogent, comprehensive, coherent, intelligent arguments in support of her positions -- assuming she has a firm conviction about anything, apart from her singular lust for securing the Office of the Presidency.Clinton in her remarks is essentially asserting that the NRA is something other than the millions of Americans who compose it and millions more who derive benefit from it – whose interests the NRA represents. Is Clinton suggesting that tens of millions of Americans – stand up against themselves – against their own interests? Once again, Anderson Cooper didn’t trouble himself to ask Clinton to expand upon her bald, bold pronouncements. Rather, he allowed her to bask in the limelight of her mesmerized devotees, who hang on her every empty and, often, inconsistent word. Clinton then unleashed another volley of ludicrous assertions that -- one might reasonably suspect -- she expects the public to take for profound aphorisms. She blurted out that the majority of Americans support background checks and even the majority of gun owners do. Oh, really? But, instead of quizzical gazes from the audience, she gets another round of applause.Clinton then attacks Sander’s record on guns. She said that Sanders voted against the “Brady Bill” five times and that, according to Clinton, since the passage of the “Brady Bill,” more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. If true, one must wonder that, if the “Brady Bill” were so successful, why are the Democrats proclaiming the need for yet more restrictive gun legislation?Oh, and now that Hillary is on a roll, more nonsense gushes forth. She asks: Did you know that the gun manufacturing industry in America is the only industry immune from lawsuits? She further asserts that gun manufacturers are the only manufacturers who are not accountable. Clinton would have you believe that this nonsense is just common knowledge rather than vacuous remarks, devoid of any legal or logical substance.Sanders responded that we need to expand background checks, do away with the “gun show loophole,” deal with mental health issues, and do away with straw man purchases. This all boils down to: limit as far as possible the number of Americans who can possess firearms, and make sure that those few remaining law-abiding Americans, who can and do lawfully possess firearms, register them so all governmental bodies know who those Americans are -- which makes confiscation of firearms, then, a relatively simple task.Not to be outdone, Martin O’Malley blurted out his own righteous indignation. O’Malley referred to a lawsuit that was filed by a couple against a person who sold several thousand rounds to the individual who killed their daughter in a “mass shooting” in Aurora, Colorado. O’Malley said that the game was rigged against this couple. The case – we’d all like to have the citation to it – was thrown out of court. Worse, according to O’Malley, the couple were “slapped with $200,000.00 in court fees.” And, who was responsible for this alleged perversion of justice, according to O'Malley? The proverbial Bogeyman! The NRA of course. The NRA, according to O’Malley, gets its way in Congress and “we” – whoever “we” refers to – take a backseat. O’Malley concludes his rant with: “It’s time to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation in this Nation!” More applause.Sanders and O’Malley then get into it – as egged on by Cooper. Clinton, for her part, standing calmly between the two – nods her head knowingly, and smiles vacantly, demonstrating seeming composure, as Sanders and O’Malley exhibit a very un-presidential loss of control.Finally, Cooper deigns to give the lost black sheep of the herd, Lincoln Chafee, a couple of minutes to chime in. Chaffee remarks that he has consistently voted for “commonsense gun safety legislation,” and that he has earned an "F" Rating from the NRA -- something to be proud of, apparently. Continuing to smile at seemingly nothing, as he has done throughout the “debate,” Chafee adds that “commonsense” gun safety legislation cannot be passed because the “Gun Lobby” comes in and tells the people, “they’re coming to take away your guns.” Well, aren’t "they" though?So, there you have it: the Democratic Presidential Candidates' policy positions and strategies for undermining the Second Amendment. Oddly enough, though, as each of the Democratic Party candidates for President denigrated “guns,” during the lengthy ten minute tirade, not one of them bothered to explicitly mention the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is really what the "gun" issue is all about, which the candidates talked roundabout, climbing over each other in their mindless zeal to excoriate.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: STRAIGHT IN THE CROSSHAIRS!

With the latest tragic shooting incident – this one taking place at an obscure community college in Oregon on October 1, 2015 – the Mainstream Media is, once again, ever again, thrusting the public’s attention onto guns. Oh, What to do about guns! Well, Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from New York, has a plan. Maloney introduced a bill, back in May of this year: “The Firearm Risk Protection Act.” If this bill were to become law, a person would be required to have liability insurance to purchase a gun or face a $10,000.00 fine. The cost of that insurance would, of course, add to the overall cost of the firearm. But, then, the salient point of Maloney’s bill is to make gun ownership such an onerous, expensive proposition that the American public would be dissuaded from making the purchase of a gun in the first place. But, suppose a person is willing to tighten his or her belt and expend the money. What, then?Just imagine: your firearm is stolen by a psychopathic “gangbanger” or a psychotic, homicidal maniac and that person injures or kills someone, or injures and/or kills several individuals with that weapon. The injured party or parties – or the family or families of individuals killed by the “gangbanger” or maniac – files a lawsuit against you, and not the “gangbanger” or maniac, because liability for the injury or death accrues to you and to you alone by virtue of “The Firearm Risk Protection Act;” and, you, after all, are the deep pocket through the liability insurance coverage on your firearms -- that you were forced to obtain.Now, your insurance company does indemnify you, the insured, against the damages claims. And that’s all well and good. But your insurance premiums go up or, worse, insurance coverage is thereafter denied to you altogether as a result of an astronomical payout to the injured party or parties or to the family or families of the parties suffering harm at the hands of the “gangbanger” or maniac. And that isn’t so good. But Maloney doesn’t wish to talk about that possibility.You decide that it is simply too costly to protect yourself and your family with a firearm, or, perhaps, you have no choice in the matter. But, if you are denied firearm liability insurance coverage, you can no longer lawfully own and possess a firearm. So, then, what do you do? You decide to invest in a Louisville Slugger. Insurance, fortunately, isn’t required for that. Thank you very much, Carolyn Maloney, for your The Firearm Risk Protection Act.Maloney’s bill, will not, of course, pass. Indeed, with Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress, fortunately, the bill will not even make its way out of Committee. Indeed, the bill, has not, as of this date, six months since its introduction by Maloney -- made its way out of Committee. Still, for her effort, introduction of the bill will endear her to those few frightened, lost little lambs who are forever looking to Big Government to protect them from others and, for that matter, who are looking to Big Government to protect them from themselves.But, apart from Maloney’s bill and many other ludicrous ideas of late, concocted by antigun zealots to erode the Second Amendment at both the federal and State levels, there is something more sinister afoot that threatens the Second Amendment directly – something worse than Maloney’s bill, awful as her bill is, even if the bill did gain traction in Congress, which it won’t.As alluded to in the first sentence of this post, the Mainstream Media has provided wide coverage of the latest “mass shooting.” But, we would be wrong to dismiss the impact of this latest incident out-of-hand The reason for this is that so-called “mass shootings” are the impetus behind specific kinds of restrictive firearms language that denies firearms’ access to extremely large segments of the American population. And, the antigun establishment, and President Barack Obama, and Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, intend to turn this latest incident into a “tipping point” for restrictions on gun possession.The NY Times has pulled out all the stops with the latest incident in Oregon through a series of articles designed  to affect the emotions – not the intellect – of its readers. The October 4, 2015 Sunday edition of the newspaper is replete with articles – news accounts and editorials – by such ostensible “luminaries” as Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristoff, who feel obliged or, perhaps, were asked, to weigh in.What the NY Times news reports and commentary boils down to is this: since it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty who will become a “mass murderer,” the better course of action is to remove firearms from the American citizenry in totality, and in double-quick time.” What is the rationale for this?Well, we, humans, are, after all, beings of emotion as well as intellect. We react to life’s events emotionally as well as intellectually. Each of us, at one time or another, expresses hope and fear, joy and sadness, compassion and resentment. Sometimes we get angry, or we fall into fits of depression or anxiety. Perhaps we lost a loved one, or a job. Perhaps we express concern – much concern – over the manner in which our Government spends our hard-earned tax dollars. Thus is our human-ness expressed.The vast majority of us deal with the vicissitudes of life stoically. A few of us do not – apparently cannot. The NY Times has written a lengthy polemic, posted on line, October 3, 2015, “How They Got Their Guns.” It is curious, though, that no photographs of the individuals who perpetrated the violence are shown – in the digital version of the NY Times article which, clearly, is expected to receive the largest audience and “most hits.” Instead, the NY Times thrusts large, high gloss, high resolution – almost three-dimensional – graphics of firearms upon us – something that the publisher cannot do cost-effectively in the print version of the newspaper. The NY Times' use of large, high gloss, high resolution graphics is not accidental. The Times is suggesting, subliminally, that it is the firearms themselves that are the real sentient actors of the violence, and not the individuals who actually wielded the weapons. But, for all that, our intelligence tells us, contrary to what the NY Times article strongly suggests, that it is individuals, after all, and not inanimate objects, who are the real perpetrators of the violence that occurred.And, what of those perpetrators? The antigun zealots and fanatics intend that those few poor souls, bereft of mind and spirit, who are the cause of violence, whether committed with guns or with any other implement – in a population of millions of law-abiding, sane, rational gun owners – are to be the measure – the standard – by which our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is to be finely calibrated. But, most Americans do not expect, certainly do not demand, indeed would not ever wish that Government utilize, as the standard of measurement, the lowest common denominator among us upon which the vast majority of us is to be judged and found wanting of the ability to handle firearms responsibly. But, that is exactly what is happening. And, let there be no mistake: the antigun forces through their stooges in the mainstream media have the entirety of the Second Amendment in their sights.NY Times reviewer, Frank Bruni, in his op-ed, published on October 4, 2015, titled, “Guns, Campuses and Madness,” did not mince words, when he stated: “This is madness. When it comes to guns, we have lost our bearings in this country, allowing misguided chest-thumping about a constitutional amendment penned in an entirely different epoch, under entirely different circumstances, to trump all prudence and decency.” The Bill of Rights, according to Bruni – who is obviously speaking on behalf of the antigun establishment – has no meaning, no purpose, except in the context of a particular place and a particular time. The Bill of Rights – our Bill of Rights – must, consistent with Bruni’s argument, be rewritten, sans any mention of one, particular right pre-existing in Man himself. And, the entirety of our jurisprudence must be reconsidered in light of a new global view of law, as argued by Justice Stephen Breyer in his recently published book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,” consistent, too, with trade policies, such as the pending, “TPP,” that make mincemeat of our Nation’s laws and of our Constitution.But, no other Country on the face of this Earth has ever expressed a right to keep and bear arms existent in a Country’s citizenry. So, is the U.S. wrong, and every other Country right? Were our Founders so mistaken to profess to create a Bill of Rights, embracing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” that was deemed to express a sacred right existent in Man for All Time and not just for a particular epoch? Is it time to repeal the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as the antigun establishment, both in this Country and abroad, hope for and are strenuously working toward? And, were that to happen, what, then, becomes of the United States? Would it even be accurate to still call the United States a Free Republic at that point, as that notion was envisioned by our Founders?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUNS, PLANES, AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

By now, all who keep abreast of the news are well aware of the tragedy that befell Germanwings Flight 9525, last month.The co-pilot of that airplane deliberately flew the passenger plane into a mountain, killing himself and everyone else on board. The public can only speculate as to the thought processes of the killer, Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of that Germanwings flight. But, as to one matter, the public need not speculate. Andreas Lubitz suffered from severe depression and should not have been flying an airplane at all, least of all a commercial aircraft, carrying 150 passengers and crew members.Major newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, have reported that officials of Deutsche Lufthansa AG, a prominent commercial airline and parent Company of Germanwings, knew about Lubitz’s mental health condition, and allowed him to pilot Flight 9525 anyway. That error in judgment, on the part of Lufthanza officials, that failure to take responsibility, is the root cause of the tragedy.Unfortunately, the failure to take responsibility is all too often the root cause of many tragedies that would otherwise never occur.Recall the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December of 2012. A very disturbed young man, Adam Lanza, killed over two dozen people, 20 of whom were children, as reported by the New York Times. Lanza then turned the gun on himself. Police investigators encountered an additional victim at Lanza’s home. Adam Lanza had also shot his mother. He did not own the guns he used in the shootings. Those belonged to Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy.Nancy Lanza, who knew or should have known of her son’s psychosis, ought to have secured her firearms. She had not.As with the recent airplane tragedy, a failure to take responsibility was the root cause of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. Neither one need have occurred.Yet, in the case of Sandy Hook, the antigun groups wasted no time in calling for new bans on guns.There are no similar calls for bans on use of large commercial airplanes. Of course such a ban, in the latter case, would essentially mark the end of the airline industry. Such action would also put hundreds of thousands of people, around the world – those who work directly or indirectly in the commercial airline industry – out of work.But, apart from pragmatic realities, it is foolish to blame the entire commercial airline industry, much less the unconscious machine itself – the airplane – for the actions of one sentient, albeit deeply disturbed young man. It is also foolish to blame the entire commercial airline industry for the irresponsible behavior of those airline officials who, through their inaction, allowed a disturbed pilot to take control of an aircraft, thereby permitting the tragedy to occur.Parallels certainly may be drawn between the Lufthansa incident and the Sandy Hook incident. But, while no bans are contemplated against the continued use of commercial aircraft, antigun groups argue vociferously for further bans on guns. The public is continually and wearily subject to the same bleat: “get rid of the guns!” No mention is made though – not a squeak – over personal responsibility. Nancy Lanza saw a problem. She chose to ignore it. That negligence on her part allowed her mentally disturbed son to gain access to her firearms. The ensuing tragedy was predictable.Similarly, Lufthansa officials knew or should have known that one of its pilots, Andreas Lubitz, was mentally unbalanced.  But it looked the other way, allowing a mentally unstable individual to pilot a commercial airplane. As with the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident, the catastrophe that befell Germanwings Flight 9525 was also predictable.If people act irresponsibly, the proper course of action is to deal with those individuals alone.In Nancy Lanza’s case, her own irresponsible behavior was the proximate cause of her own death and those, tragically, of many innocent people.In the case of Germanwings flight 9525, the cause of the tragedy falls squarely upon the shoulders of the Lufthansa officials: their failure to take immediate action to prevent a pilot, whom they knew or should have known to be unfit to pilot an aircraft, from flying.Still, just as it would be imbecilic to blame an entire industry for the actions of a few airline company officials who fail to monitor the physical and mental health of their pilots, it is altogether inappropriate to chastise an entire population of responsible gun owners for the actions of the few who behave irresponsibly with their guns. Obviously, it is ludicrous to ground entire fleets of aircraft because of the irresponsible actions of those who can prevent a tragedy from happening, but don’t. It is equally foolish to impose wholesale bans on firearms: punishing millions of responsible gun owners for the irresponsible actions of a few.What should be done?The answer in both cases is the same: calling not for overbearing, thuggish Government regulation and control over everyone and everything, but placing blame where blame properly lies, and dealing with it there.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS DUPE THE PUBLIC ON GUN DEBATE

It is a curious fact that mainstream newspapers consistently fail to provide their readers with logically sound, consistent, coherent, cogent arguments to support their case against civilian ownership of guns. Indeed, there isn’t a pretense to do so. Rather, these newspapers prefer to recite banal normative prescriptions, empty slogans, and vague statements devoid of any meaningful content. The mainstream newspapers take as a given that civilian gun ownership is untenable. And upon that faulty foundation they spout pious sentiments and posit specious propositions, ostensibly to support a doubtful moral position.A few days ago, on September 27, 2014, Joe Nocera, an opinion columnist for The New York Times, wrote a piece titled, “Paralysis isn’t Inevitable.” In that Op-Ed Nocera says Congress can act to pass more gun laws. He points to a strategy Daniel Webster  Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, proposes to accomplish that.According to Webster, “It’s a loser to call for a gun ban.” Instead {Webster’s} reforms would make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. Using background checks, {Webster} would keep guns away from people who have a history of violence. {Webster} would raise the age of gun ownership to 21. (Webster notes that homicides peak between the ages of 18 and 20). . . . And {Webster} would mandate something called microstamping, ‘which would make it possible to trace a gun used in a crime to its first purchaser. . . .’ And {Webster} pointed to polls that show the vast majority of gun owners favor such changes.”Nocera then quotes, with approval, Webster’s obligatory attack on the NRA. “The N.R.A. has been very successful in controlling the conversation and making it about a cultural war. . . . But, I believe that narrative won’t persist. The key . . . is to change the conversation so that it is about pro- and anti-crime instead of pro- and anti-gun. . . . I think that ultimately that idea will prevail, and it will be a pretty mainstream idea.”Before we analyze the various assertions expressed in this Op-Ed, keep in mind that the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is not a neutral think tank. It has an agenda and that agenda is decidedly unfavorable toward the Second Amendment. Its purpose: “The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research began in 1995 with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago. It is dedicated to reducing gun violence by providing information on firearm injuries and gun policy; by developing, analyzing, and evaluating strategies to prevent firearm injuries; and by conducting public health and legal research to identify gun policy needs.”You will note the absence of any mention of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the context of the Center’s mission statement. The normative argument implicit in the Center’s mission statement and as tacitly conveyed in Nocera’s Op-Ed is this: anything that the Center perceives as harmful to the public is morally reprehensible and must be banned. Guns are perceived as harmful to the public. Therefore guns must be banned. That is the moral argument – the normative prescription against gun ownership and possession. And, the goal of the “The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research" is clear enough from a perusal of its mission statement. Colloquially expressed the goal is simply this: Get guns out of the hands of the civilian population. Now, let’s take a look at the fallacies and speciousness of Webster’s assertions as cited, nonetheless, with approval in Nocera’s NY Times Op-Ed piece.First, we might well ask how Webster’s strategies prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Clearly, criminals aren’t prevented from obtaining guns. But, a good chunk of law-abiding American citizenry would be precluded from obtaining guns if any of these strategies became law. Apparently, Webster and Nocera equate criminals – who have never had a problem obtaining guns – with law-abiding citizens, whom they do not wish to have access to guns.Second, Webster says that, “it is a loser to call for a gun ban.” No kidding and rightly so! Yet, in the very assertion Webster admits the need to deceive the public. To get the public to cajole Congress to enact further restrictive gun laws, it is necessary to get the public to think less about the law-abiding citizen’s right to own and possess guns and more about criminals who misuse guns. Of course, Webster fails to acknowledge the myriad laws on the books that prohibit criminals from owning guns – laws that are rarely, if ever, enforced. So, Webster’s desire for further restrictive laws against gun ownership and possession must be directed, not against the career criminal, but, rather, against the law-abiding citizen.Third, knowing that laws against ownership of guns by law-abiding Americans won’t fly, Webster suggests attacking the right to keep and bear arms obliquely, through the device of “background checks.” Note: Webster hasn’t mentioned using background checks to target criminals. Rather, he wishes to target two other exponentially larger population groups: those under the age of 21, specifically those between the ages of 18 and 20, and those whom, he says, “have a history of violence.”Let’s take a closer look at these two groups. It should be obvious to all Americans that the minimum age of enlistment in any of the armed forces is 17. So, an American citizen may, as a soldier, handle and possess sophisticated weaponry at age 17, but Webster and Nocera would deny an American citizen, as a civilian, to own and possess a gun until he or she is 21.You see where this is going. Say a young man or woman leaves the military at age 20. A person risks life and limb to serve his and her Country and is perfectly adept at handling firearms; but, as a civilian, that American citizen isn’t permitted to own a firearm because he or she falls into an age group that, according to Webster, happens to have the highest rates of homicide. Dubious statistics trumps ice-cold logic.Fourth, and what does the phrase “a history of violence” mean: That a person who had ever said a discouraging word to another person is violent? That a person who was depressed at some point in his or her life is presumptively violent against self and/or against others? That a person who had ever had an altercation with another for whatever reason is violent? That a soldier or sailor or airman who had engaged in armed conflict is violent? Cannot such an open-ended phrase, “a history of violence,” sweep into the clutches of the gun grabbers literally millions of honest, law-abiding Americans? Undoubtedly, Webster wishes to keep the phrase as open-ended and as amorphous as possible, to corral millions of law-abiding Americans.Fifth, Webster and Nocera refer to that “something” or other called microstamping that would enable the police to trace a gun “to its first purchaser.” The emphasis here is on tracing a gun “to its first purchaser,” and not to the criminal who actually used the gun in the commission of a crime. So, a criminal plants cartridge shells at the scene of the crime or steals a gun from a law-abiding firearms owner. The police duly “trace” the gun “to its first purchaser,” and not to the criminal. And, we are to conclude that microstamping is an acceptable forensics tool for law enforcement? Really? Clearly, microstamping of firearms is worse than useless. Apparently, Webster and Nocera think otherwise. Perhaps they simply don’t care, reasoning that, if a law-abiding person didn’t have a gun in the first place, the gun could never be traced back to him. So, the moral is: don’t own a gun!Sixth, and what about those opinion polls? Without referring to any particular poll, Webster says that, in the wake of Newtown, gun owners favor changes to existing gun laws. What changes is Webster referring to? And, what questions were asked of “gun owners” whom Webster claims support “changes?” Certainly, one can phrase a question in a multitude of ways to elicit any answer the questioner wishes. And, asking a question about guns, when emotions run high, is not the time to push through legislation. The public should be treated with respect. And appeals should be directed to one’s higher cognitive functions, not to the emotive center of one’s brain.Seventh, Webster attacks the NRA. The antigun crowd always attacks the NRA. Webster asserts the NRA controls the conversation about guns. If that were only true! Actually, the NRA is forever compelled to repel insistent attacks against it and against the Second Amendment. Webster says the NRA makes the issue about guns a “cultural war.” Since when is the battle to preserve and secure our sacred Bill of Rights reduced to a matter of personal aesthetics, which, apparently, is what Webster is getting at through use of the word ‘culture?’ And, when, if ever, did the NRA profess a cavalier attitude toward crime? Webster suggests that any pro-gun argument, which, actually, is a pro Bill of Rights Second Amendment argument, entails acquiescence toward gun violence. That is absolutely false, but Webster creates the association anyway suggesting, ludicrously, that the NRA, by being strong on guns, is soft on crime.Bottom line: don’t look to the mainstream news media for cogent, well-reasoned arguments. You won’t get them.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DWAYNE FERGUSON PLEADS GUILTY ON WEAPONS CHARGE. BUT WILL HE LOSE HIS "CARRY" LICENSE? WILL HE LOSE HIS HANDGUNS?

You may recall the Dwayne Ferguson case. But, for those of you who might have forgotten, we give you the following facts, as posted first in the Arbalest Quarrel on February 23, 2014: “Officials at Harvey Austin Elementary School, located in Buffalo, New York, received an anonymous tip. A person had entered the school with a gun. The police were alerted; a SWAT team responded, and the school was ‘locked down.’ Scouring the school, the police eventually traced the weapon to a dubious source: Dewayne Ferguson. Ferguson, 52 years old, father of three, operator of a printing press, who worked as a security guard for community events, was caught. He had carried a gun into a school building. At no time, during the police sweep of the building, did Ferguson inform the police he had a gun on him. What was Ferguson doing in the school? He isn’t a teacher. Still, Ferguson had a legitimate purpose for being at the School, but that purpose did not extend to his having a gun on him.The Buffalo News said that ‘Ferguson is not employed by the Buffalo School District but was working in the 21st Century Community Learning Program, an after-school academic enrichment initiative that tutors disadvantaged students.’ The police arrested Ferguson and he was charged under the same law he fought to pass – the NYSAFE Act. According to WGRZ-TV, a Buffalo news station, Ferguson pleaded not guilty to two weapons charges. WGRZ-TV also reported that prosecutors asked the Court to set bail at $10,000.00, but “City Court Judge Jeanette Ogden released the activist on his own recognizance, citing his community involvement and the fact that Ferguson has no prior run-ins with the law.Ferguson, a proponent of NYSAFE, is a friend of ‘antigun’ zealots who promoted it. As reported by The Buffalo News, ‘he was among local activists who stood with Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes last year lobbying for a law that would make possessing a gun on school property a felony.’ Ironically, Ferguson was charged under the same law he advocated for.”In a follow-up to our February 23, 2014 Article, posted on April 25, 2014, we gave you an in depth review of the laws affecting Ferguson as an attorney would view the matter: first, citing the charges brought against Ferguson together with the Court docket numbers and, second, we explained precisely what those two charges mean.There were two weapons’ charges brought against Dwayne Ferguson and there are two docket numbers as the two charges were initially filed in the Buffalo City Court; one charge was dropped and the case was waived to Erie County Supreme Court because of the severity of both charges, as both charges amounted to felonies, and either weapons’ count was beyond the jurisdiction of City Court:“The police brought Ferguson to Buffalo City Court. The Prosecutor arraigned Ferguson on two weapons charges: Penal Code Sections 265.03 and 265.01-a. The case is: People vs. Dwayne Ferguson. The case was initially brought in Buffalo City Court.  The criminal docket number in the Buffalo City Court is: #ER 002043F. The case was subsequently transferred to the Erie County Supreme Court. The criminal docket number in the Erie County Court is: #00235-2014.”Here is a detailed account of the two weapons charges as filed against Ferguson:Let’s look at New York Penal Code Section 265.03 first. ‘A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when: (1) with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, such person: (a) possesses a machine-gun; or (b) possesses a loaded firearm; or (c) possesses a disguised gun; or (2) such person possesses five or more firearms; or (3) such person possesses any loaded firearm. . . . Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is a class C felony.’We look at Penal Code Section 265.01-a next. ‘A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes, of any school, college, or university, . . . . Criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class E felony.’Now let’s take a closer look at these Statutes for the Ferguson case.We will look at New York Penal Code Section 265.03 first. We know Ferguson did not intend to use his handgun against another person. So, condition “1” of Section 265.03 is irrelevant. That leaves Penal Code Sections 265.03(2) or (3). Neither applies. I explain. We must look to Penal Code Section 265.20. This is an exemption provision Section in the New York Penal Code. Let’s take a look at Penal Code Section 265.20(a)(3). “Paragraph [h] of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 and sections 265.01, 265.01-a, subdivision one of section 265.01-b, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11, 265.12, 265.13, 265.15, 265.36, 265.37 and 270.05 shall not apply to: Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter or possession of a weapon as defined in paragraph [e] or [f] of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this article which is registered pursuant to paragraph [a] of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter or is included on an amended license issued pursuant to section 400.00 of this chapter.” What does this mean?Dwayne Ferguson has a license to carry a handgun. So, even though Ferguson had a firearm on him – and presumably a loaded firearm – Penal Code Section 265.03 doesn’t apply to him. Ferguson’s handgun license allows for him to carry a loaded firearm. The City Prosecutor properly dismissed the Section 265.03 charge. That left Penal Code Section 265.01-a. Again, let’s take a look at Section 265.01-a.‘A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes. . . .’ ‘Criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class E felony.’In the April 25 Article we left off, speculating what might happen to Dwayne Ferguson on the Section 265.01-a charge. We don’t need to speculate about this any longer. We now know. The Grand Jury was never convened. The First Assistant District Attorney didn’t need to convene a Grand Jury because Ferguson pleaded guilty to the Section 265.01-a weapons’ charge last week, Tuesday, May 27, 2014, in Erie County Supreme Court where he stood before Judge John Michalski. Now, you may rightly ask, why did Dwayne Ferguson plead guilty to the Section 265.01-a charge, rather than fighting the charge in Court?Well, we know the best case scenario for Ferguson would have been for the Erie Country First Assistant District Attorney, who prosecuted the case, to dismiss the charge against Ferguson. But that wasn’t going to happen. What then were Ferguson’s options? Actually, there was only one. Had he not pleaded out, the First Assistant District Attorney would have brought the matter before the Grand Jury. There was always the possibility the Grand Jury, when presented with the District Attorney’s evidence against Dwayne Ferguson, might have decided against indicting him. Granted, that possibility existed – slim though it was, virtually non-existent, really. But Ferguson might have taken a chance just the same, hoping the Grand Jury wouldn’t indict him: that would have ended the matter; the School gun charge against him would have been dropped; and, likely, Ferguson’s two handguns would have been returned him and it would be as if the matter had never had happened. But, if the Grand Jury did indict, then Ferguson would have had to face a trial – more likely a trial by jury, assuming Ferguson didn’t seek a bench trial instead, which would be foolhardy. But, Ferguson clearly had to ask himself, did he wish to go through a trial? If he decided to exercise his right to trial by jury, what, then? Well, it is likely a jury would find Ferguson guilty since the police found a gun on him in a school and would testify to that fact. So, it would be extremely difficult for Dwayne Ferguson to deny the facts at trial. Could Ferguson convince a jury otherwise? That's unlikely. Honestly, would a jury believe the police were either lying about finding a gun on Ferguson, or that the police were mistaken about the object that was found on him – a handgun? Still, the District Attorney had to prove one critical element of the Section 265.01-a charge – namely that Ferguson knew he had a gun on him when he entered the school building. But, since it is presumed that a person knows what he or she has on them, it would be difficult for Ferguson to deny he had knowledge that he had a gun on him. If he sought to do so, giving his own testimony, under oath, swearing he honestly didn’t know he had a gun on him, then that would certainly raise an issue involving Ferguson’s mental and emotional competency, namely, should Dwayne Ferguson be trusted with a firearm at all? Still, speculation concerning what might or mightn’t have transpired had the case gone to trial – while of some academic interest – if such were to happen again – is, in the instant case, all but moot. For, as we now know, Ferguson pleaded guilty. And, he decided to plead out for a very important reason – critical to his wish to eventually acquire his guns again. And, obviously, the reason Dwayne Ferguson decided to plead guilty was to gain the certainty that he wouldn’t have a felony conviction on his record. For, as you see, Ferguson pleaded guilty not to a Class E felony, but, rather, to a Class A Misdemeanor. As we had mentioned in an earlier post on the Arbalest Quarrel, prior to passage of NY SAFE, criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds was a Class A misdemeanor. With the enactment of SAFE, criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds was increased to a Class E felony. Curiously and oddly and ironically, Ferguson was a strong supporter and advocate for the SAFE Act. Yet, he was spared the harshest penalty if convicted under it. As a condition of agreeing to plead guilty to the Section 265.01-a charge of possessing a weapon on school grounds, the Defense and the People agreed that Ferguson would receive the Class A misdemeanor penalty rather than the Class E felony penalty. Now, some readers may believe that Ferguson got off easy. But, keep in mind a few important points here: (1) Dwayne Ferguson had never been convicted of a serious crime before this odd mishap and first time offenders, generally, factoring in, of course, the nature of the crime, are often treated leniently by a Court; (2) the cost of a jury trial is expensive and the cost of prosecuting Ferguson must be borne by the tax payer although of course he must pay for his own defense; and a District Attorney must expend considerable time and resources to prepare for and prosecute a case that goes to trial; (3) Dwayne Ferguson is a hypocrite – no argument there – but hypocrisy – albeit reprehensible behavior to a good many of us – isn’t a crime in America, and, were it otherwise, our prisons would certainly be inundated – not least of all with politicians; and (4) for anyone who is treated like a V.I.P., such as Ferguson, the loss of his guns must vex Dwayne Ferguson to no end assuming, of course, Ferguson does in fact, lose possession of his firearms. But is that true? Will he suffer revocation of his ‘full carry’ handgun license and will Ferguson lose his handguns and forego their return to him indefinitely? If so, then why? And if not, then, why not? What, truly, does this all mean? Well, the Ferguson’s case isn’t over – only the conviction phase of it is. Dwayne Ferguson is scheduled to appear before Judge Michalski for sentencing on August 19^th. One of three things can transpire for Ferguson: one, Ferguson can be sentenced to prison, up to one year. That’s unlikely to happen since, once again, Ferguson hasn’t, to the best of our knowledge and belief, apart from the present matter – possessing a weapon on school grounds – ever been convicted of a serious crime; two, Ferguson can get probation for a specified period of time and that would spare him a stay in prison, but he would have to appear periodically before a probation officer, and that, too would not be particularly appealing to Ferguson; and three, the Judge can order a conditional discharge. This last judicial option would be the most favorable to Ferguson. For, in that event, Ferguson falls under the auspices of and control of the sentencing Court, not the probation office. Ferguson would probably be ordered to complete community service for a specified time, and the Court would be kept apprised of Ferguson’s conduct to assure itself that Ferguson is staying out of trouble. But, keep in mind, a conditional discharge doesn’t negate the crime for Ferguson. In order for Ferguson to be truly relieved of his criminal record, he would need to claim relief from disability; and he could do so at the sentencing, or he could do so at a later date, as a separate matter, before a different Judge in the Erie County Supreme Court.Now what does all this mean for the status of Ferguson’s guns and his ability to reclaim them from the police? Well, we first look to the Court itself to see what is required of it under Section 2 of the SAFE Act, as codified in Section of 380.96 of the N.Y. Criminal Procedure law, in respect to Ferguson’s license. The NY SAFE Act sets forth clearly, concisely and unmistakably: “Upon judgment of conviction of any offense which would require the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted, and the revocation of any license or registration issued pursuant to Article Four Hundred of the Penal Law, the Judge pronouncing sentence shall demand surrender of any such license or registration and all firearms, shotguns and rifles. The failure to so demand surrender shall not effect the validity of any revocation pursuant to Article Four Hundred of the Penal Law.” So, since Ferguson has previously surrendered his firearms to the police, must the sentencing Judge order surrender of Ferguson’s pistol license under Section 380.96 of the Criminal Procedure law? Now this is a sticky wicket. A key phrase of Section 2 of the SAFE Act rests on the first clause, “upon judgment of conviction of any offense which would require the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted.” Well, Ferguson’s guns were seized at the scene of the crime, but that isn’t what Section 2 of the NY SAFE Act means by “upon judgment of conviction of any offense which would require the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted.” For, the taking of Dwayne Ferguson’s guns by the police, on school grounds doesn’t, ipso facto, constitute conviction of any offense. Yes, Dwayne Ferguson was arrested at the scene, and, yes, police seized his handgun. And, yes, a second handgun was later turned over to the police. But, arrest doesn’t equal conviction. Conviction under Section 265.01-a of the Penal Law occurred after, on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, in the Erie County Supreme Court, when Dwayne Ferguson pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge of knowingly possessing a weapon on school grounds. The question is whether judgment of conviction of that offense requires the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted. Well, let’s see. We must now turn to Subsection 11 of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal law. And Subsection 11 of Section 400.00 of the N.Y. Penal law deals with both revocation and suspension of gun licenses. That Subsection sets forth in principal part: “The conviction of a licensee anywhere of a felony or serious offense shall operate as a revocation of the license. A license may be revoked or suspended as provided in Section 530.14 of the Criminal Procedure Law or Section Eight Hundred Forty-two-a of the Family Court Act.” Section 530.14 doesn’t apply to the instant case since it involves orders of protection. So, if the Court is required to revoke Dwayne Ferguson’s license, that is so if Ferguson is convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor.Now, it’s clear that, if Dwayne Ferguson were convicted of a Class E felony, Judge Michalski would in fact have no choice in the matter as conviction under Section 265.01-a of the Penal Law would mandate revocation of all pistol licenses and long arm permits. But, although the SAFE Act has amended Section 265.01-a of the New York Penal Law so that conviction under that Section is now a Class E felony, Ferguson was allowed to plead guilty to a Class A misdemeanor, the penalty for carrying a weapon onto school grounds prior to SAFE. So the question is whether a Class A misdemeanor constitutes a serious offense within the meaning of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Law. The title of Section 400.00 of the Penal Law is, “Licenses to Carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms.” Now, it so happens that the words ‘serious offense,’ are defined with particularity in the Section 265.00 of the New York Penal Law. That means that we need not guess whether a Class A misdemeanor is a ‘serious offense,’ for the expression is a legal term of art. Subsection 17 of Section 265.00 of the New York Penal Law says in pertinent part: “Serious offense means any of the following offenses defined in the penal law: illegally using, carrying or possessing a pistol or other dangerous weapon.” The question now is whether Ferguson had illegally carried a gun at the time of his arrest on school grounds. Well, he did illegally carry a gun onto school grounds. There's no question about that, and that was the basis for his arrest and for his ultimate conviction under Section 265.01-a of the Penal Law in the first instance. But the question is whether Ferguson had illegally possessed a gun at all. Well, Ferguson did not illegally possess or carry a firearm since he had a valid permit for it. The Permit was lawfully issued to him under Section 400.00 of the Penal Law. And the nature of the license allowed Ferguson both to possess a gun and to carry it on him. And that is why the Section 265.03 charge against Ferguson was dropped. So, we may now reasonably conclude that, under Subsection 17 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Law, Dwayne Ferguson did not plead guilty to and was not convicted of a serious offense under the Penal Code of New York. A Class A misdemeanor is not, in this instance at least, a 'serious offense' under the Penal Code of New York. So, clearly, it was for this reason that Ferguson was in fact willing to plead guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge under Section 265.01-a for having possession of a weapon on school grounds. Had he not been able to do so, it is unlikely that he would've readily agreed to plead out. He certainly would not have willingly pleaded guilty to a Class E felony under Section 265.01-a. The Class A misdemeanor conviction provides Ferguson his best chance of keeping his “full carry” handgun license and for reclaiming his firearms from the police.So, where does that leave us and Ferguson? Well, the police still have Ferguson’s two handguns. So, as it appears the Erie County Supreme Court isn’t required to revoke Ferguson’s pistol license, and, too, as the matter of the disposition of Ferguson’s pistol license is out of the hands of the First District Attorney of Erie County, the question is, then, who does have authority – if anyone at all – to revoke or allow Ferguson to keep his pistol carry license? That, we’ve learned, falls upon Wilmer Fowler. Who is Wilmer Fowler? Wilmer Fowler is the Erie County Pistol Permit Hearing Officer. And it’s up to Mr. Fowler whether to allow Dwayne Ferguson to retain his pistol license. If Mr. Fowler does allow Dwayne Ferguson to keep his pistol license – and it isn’t clear the Hearing Officer will allow Ferguson to keep his pistol carry license in light of the conviction, notwithstanding that Ferguson pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge rather than a Class E felony charge – the matter doesn’t end there. For the Hearing Officer’s decision to allow Dwayne Ferguson to retain his pistol permit ultimately rests with the Erie County Supreme Court, although Judge Michalski who presides over the criminal proceeding won’t decide that matter. The decision – whether Ferguson is allowed to retain his pistol license – isn’t a criminal matter. It’s a civil matter. So, who decides the issue? Judge Martin Boller of the Erie County Supreme Court, who handles civil cases, does. Judge Boller, you see, also handles pistol permit cases. And the suspension or revocation of pistol licenses is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Judge Boller is the Pistol Permit Hearing Judge. Thus the fate of Dwayne Ferguson’s pistol license rests in the hands of Judge Boller, assuming the Pistol Permit Hearing Officer does not revoke Ferguson’s pistol license and allows the return of his handguns to him in the first instance, and the Pistol Permit Hearing Officer has full discretion unless he abuses his discretion. If the Erie County Pistol Permit Hearing Officer decides to revoke or to suspend Ferguson’s pistol license, Ferguson can only request the Court to determine whether the Erie County Pistol Permit Hearing Officer’s decision amounts to an abuse of discretion.The Arbalest Quarrel will keep you abreast of the Ferguson matter as it continues to play out. For, there is much more we need to know; for at the present time we don’t know whether the Pistol Hearing Officer has, as yet, acted upon Ferguson’s pistol license. Dwayne Ferguson’s pistol license may already have been suspended or revoked. We just don’t know, but we aim to find out because that, certainly, is on your mind. We know this matter weighs on Ferguson’s mind.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

GUNS, KNIVES, AND OCCAM’S DANGEROUS RAZOR

SCENARIO:  Two American citizens are standing in line, one morning, waiting to purchase a cup of coffee at their local coffee shop. One American is a life member of the NRA and believes strongly in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights: all ten of them. He knows that the Bill of Rights underscores the entire Constitution and that, if any one of the ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights falls, they all fall of their own accord. The other American is a member of and fervent supporter of the “Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence.” He, too, at the moment defends the Bill of Rights except for the Second Amendment. For him the Second Amendment is antiquated as is the Third Amendment, but, where the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment had meaning and purpose at the inception of the Republic, that meaning and purpose has all but faded with the passage of time. Indeed, he might accept the proposition that, for the Second Amendment, in particular, the need for the salient assertion –  that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed – may have had, at one time, in our Nation’s past, some efficacy, as threats posed from outside of the new Nation remained. But, if the Second Amendment once had importance and, indeed, if it once had even been critical to establishing our young Nation, that need long since passed once the Nation gained an equal footing among other dominant Nations and once the Nation became, militarily, the strongest Nation in the World. Thus, for this antigun zealot, and others like him, the Second Amendment – together with the seemingly archaic Third Amendment – has long since lost whatever significance and utility it might have had. For this antigun zealot both Amendments are relics of an earlier time. But, where for him the Third Amendment has no impact on society, good or bad, apparently, this supporter of the “The Brady Campaign” sees the Second Amendment as a clear liability and danger to the social fabric of society and to the offices of Government. This antigun proponent and antigun zealot  would most assuredly like to see the Second Amendment repealed outright. But, he and his cohorts know that won’t happen – not in the present political climate. So, he and those like him are willing to bide their time. He as with like-minded fellows accept that Congress and the States won’t repeal the Second Amendment outright. So, he and they are willing to work toward defeating what they see as the troubling problem posed by the Second Amendment, incrementally. Thus, for this antigun proponent and antigun zealot and his cohorts the Second Amendment may, they believe, be reduced to a nullity through successive legal action and effective political pressure at both the Federal and State levels. That’s what they want. That’s what they work and strive for. That’s what they hope and pray for. That’s their endgame. And they will lie, cheat, steal – and play games – to accomplish that end. For the NRA member, though, the Second Amendment is not only useful to the well-being of the Nation it is essential to the continued existence of the Nation as a democratic Republic. Contrary to the views held by antigun groups such as the Brady Campaign, this NRA supporter believes that the import and purport of all ten Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights are as critical today as they were at the inception of the Republic. For him, the Nation cannot exist as a Democratic Republic but for the Bill of Rights. And, the linchpin of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. The NRA supporter knows the Second Amendment must be honored in fact, not merely in name if it is to have any meaning and efficacy, if it is to survive. This means that the U.S. Congress and the States should work together, indeed, must work together to make sure that all Federal and State Legislation conforms to the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if it is to survive intact in the 21st Century. In fact, the U.S. Congress and the States must always work toward strengthening the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment – as with the other nine Amendments – must never be weakened, or ignored, let alone repealed, lest the Nation, as a Sovereign Nation and  as a unique Democratic Republic among Democratic Republics topples into ruin, as surely as did the once great and mighty Roman Empire.The NRA member buys his coffee and looks for a table.  Only one is available.  He quickly walks over to it, sits down, takes a sip of coffee and opens the Sunday edition of the NY Times newspaper. On the front page of the paper he reads of another shooting incident. He sighs. He finds it most curious that the mainstream news media will report every misuse of a gun and every violent, criminal act committed with a gun, and will do so with disturbing regularity, and with detail, often giving such incidents front page coverage and, yet, will ever fail to mention -- will consistently fail to mention or otherwise simply and perfunctorily gloss over the fact -- that a law-abiding American citizen and gun owner had successfully protected himself or other innocent parties with a gun. He wonders that a newspaper should find a shooting by a lunatic or gang member to be anything more than the occasional tabloid fodder, but that a law-abiding American citizen's singular, courageous act of self-defense would warrant nary a footnote on page 10 or 12 of the newspaper, if that, were that person defending his or her life with a firearm.This NRA member muses over the mainstream news media's seemingly endless fixation on misuse of firearms by psychopathic criminals or lunatics but never on use of a firearm by the average law-abiding American citizen who had preserved an innocent life with it. This NRA member recognizes that the mainstream news media is not content to simply report news involving firearms, but, rather, invariably insinuates itself into the news report, constantly, insidiously sermonizing about the purported "evils" attendant to guns -- rendering judgment on that which it reports, not content to leave opinions to the op-ed section of the newspaper. He understands full well that the mainstream news media is clearly not impartial when reporting news about gun violence and uses every opportunity to sensationalize stories involving how a lunatic or psychopathic killer took a life with a gun, and, yet, will refrain from even mentioning how a law-abiding American citizen had, with gun drawn, preserved a life, or otherwise do so only to interject that the particular citizen should not have had a firearm on his or her person in the first place. He sees the most recent incident as consistent with that trend. And he is mildly amused at The New York Times’ editor’s insistence – as apparent through the very title of the news story – that the reader should be drawn to it – sensationalizing the news account with great fanfare and flourish: "Deadly Rampage in College Town After Video Rant." The NY Times, appearing less like a respectable news source, at this point, and  more like a cash register tabloid, uses the incident as "click bait," to exploit suffering, to moralize on the evil of guns -- blowing the incident up, out of all proportion to reality. He sighs, knowing that the antigun crowd will have a field day with this one. Meanwhile, our Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence fellow has just received his coffee and, he, too, is looking for a free table. He asks a few patrons if he can join them at their table and is politely refused. He then walks over to the table of our NRA member and asks if he might join him. The NRA member graciously accedes to the request and beckons the Brady Campaign fellow to sit down. A couple of awkward minutes pass. The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence supporter (hereinafter “BCE”) sees the Second Amendment supporter (hereinafter “SAS”) reading about the Santa Barbara incident. They strike up a conversation over their coffee. Neither one, of course, is, at the moment, aware of the other’s position on the Second Amendment or of the other’s position on the import of the Bill of Rights, generally.  But that is about to change as they begin to engage each other in a lively back and forth conversation and debate about guns, about gun ownership, and about the ethical position upon which the moral foundation of each of their respective positions rests.BCE: ‘I see you’re reading about the Santa Barbara shooting. It’s a real shame that something like this has happened and it’s even more a shame that tragedies like this will likely continue to happen. You know, don’t you, that it is the Republicans in Congress, and the gun manufacturers, and the NRA that are to blame for all of this?’SAS: ‘Actually, the New York Times Article says that a very lonely, mentally unbalanced young man is responsible for this incident. I haven’t read anything in the Times piece suggesting that a gun manufacturer, or a member of Congress or the NRA was responsible for the killings.’BCE: ‘You know what I mean. If that disturbed young man didn't have access to guns, then he wouldn’t have killed all those young people. So, it’s the gun manufacturers and the gun lobby and unfeeling members of Congress, that are really responsible for all those deaths and that’s what I mean when I say that it isn’t so much the disturbed young man who is responsible for those gun deaths; it is the guns, and those who "love" guns, and it is the politicians in Congress and the cowboys who support the Second Amendment, and it is the pro-gun individuals and businesses and organizations who really bear responsibility for those gun deaths. The problem of guns is the result of all those agents who refuse to get rid of guns in this Country, once and for all.SAS: ‘Well, actually, the very first paragraph of the New York Times piece says that some of the victims were stabbed to death. So, I suppose you’re saying that, if all guns and knives were banned, then this incident wouldn’t have happened.’BCE: ‘I’m not suggesting knives be banned, you know. After all, knives serve a useful purpose. Guns don’t serve any useful purpose except to soldiers in times of war or to the police whose job it is to maintain law and order in society.’SAS: ‘You mean knives aren't useful for killing, unlike guns.’BCE: ‘You’re trying to be funny. You know full well what I mean. Anyone who cooks, or eats a steak needs a knife. Knives serve a useful purpose. But, guns serve no useful purpose, except to the military and to the police.’SAS: ‘Well, we can get back to the issue whether or not guns serve a useful purpose or purposes other than to the military and to the police, and whether guns should be readily accessible to law-abiding American citizens, beyond those who serve in the military or who serve in various police agencies. However, while we’re on the subject of knives, I think that you and I can agree, at the moment at least, that, consistent with your premise about guns, we can say the same thing about knives. In other words, we can say, with equal plausibility, that some knives do in fact serve a useful purpose, and some knives do not.’BCE: ‘That’s true. Chef knives and camping knives are useful. But other knives, such as machetes, switchblade knives, and Bowie knives aren’t useful at all. So, who needs them?’SAS: ‘Well, machetes are certainly useful to a person who happens to be hiking in the Amazonian Jungle or on Safari in Africa. Switchblades and butterfly knives get bad press because criminal gang members use them and seem to have a preference for them. And a Bowie knife is a fine camping implement. And, as you would, certainly acknowledge, I think, there are knives that have military applications: namely, combat knives and bayonets. Those are definitely designed for killing. But, certainly any knife may serve a useful purpose for a given task. And a knife’s functional design will best reflect and accommodate the task the manufacturer created for it. Yet that said, virtually any knife, you would agree, can certainly be used  to kill a person. And, we know from the Times news account that the killer did use a knife on some of his victims. But, honestly, we don’t know what kind of knife was used in the Santa Barbara killings. I’ve read the news Article in the paper. The Times doesn’t say. Do you think, perhaps, that the New York Times deliberately failed to mention the kind of knife or knives the killer used on his victims precisely because the killer happened to use a nice, respectable tableware knife, or a kitchen knife or knives -- perhaps a paring knife, serrated utility knife, carving knife and/or boning knife, and refrained from using one of the disreputable knives, such as a machete, or switchblade knife, or butterfly knife, or bowie knife or combat knife? My guess is the newspaper didn’t want the reading public to think that the killer used a socially acceptable knife rather than an evil knife. Or, perhaps, the Times didn’t want to explore knifings at all because it wished to keep the reader’s attention focused on another form of killing tool. But, for all that, I think you and I can agree that the particular knife or knives that the killer used was certainly good enough for the purpose at hand, namely killing others, whatever kind of knife that particular knife happened to be.’ That’s what the killer wanted to do and that’s what he did in fact accomplish.’BCE: ‘Look, now. Knives aren’t the issue here. We both know that the weapon of choice for killers is a gun, not a knife.’ So, it stands to reason that The New York Times wouldn’t wish to, or, for that matter, need to place emphasis on the killer’s use of a knife for some of his killing.’ SAS: ‘Actually, I think a killer’s weapon of choice is anything that killer happens to have on hand: bats, balls, knives, slingshots, a hammer and chisel, an ice pick, rope, cellophane wrap, a billy club, or simply hands and feet for that matter, as well as guns. In the Santa Barbara case, the killer accomplished his purpose quite well enough using both a knife and a gun.’ And, let’s not forget, the killer was quite successful in mangling a bicyclist with his BMW too.’ So, it would appear that the killer was willing and able to use whatever implement happened to be at hand. In this case, he happened to have on hand a knife or knives, a gun, and an automobile. There is no hint in the New York Times that the killer showed any particular preference for one kind or another of implement when he went about his killing spree.BCE: ‘Still, you would agree, wouldn’t you, that a gun is the most efficient and effective means to kill a person?’SAS: ‘Well no. In this case, the knife was just as efficient and effective as a gun.’ And, automobiles barreling down a street are known to be a very effective means to kill or seriously injure another human being.'BCE: ‘I mean that, if you want to kill a lot of people at once, a gun is better than a knife, and an assault weapon is the best gun of all to use if the killer wants to go about killing a lot of people at once. So, an assault weapon is the weapon of choice for any killer if he had a choice of implements at his disposal.’SAS: ‘You seem to be hung up on this idea of weapon of choice. Anyway, I don’t recall that the Santa Barbara killer used a so-called "assault weapon." But, be that as it may, I have to ask you what an assault weapon is because, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you believe an assault weapon is the weapon of choice of killers, I have to ask you: what is an 'assault weapon?’BCE: ‘Come on now; you’re being deliberately cagy. You and I both know perfectly well – as does everyone else – what an assault weapon is.’SAS: ‘Please indulge me.’BCE: ‘All right, then. An assault weapon is a weapon something like a military weapon. In other words, an assault weapon, as everyone knows, is a military styled weapon.’SAS: ‘Well if you’re assuming that an assault weapon is like a military weapon, ergo, a military styled weapon, I still don’t have a clue what you’re talking about because many kinds of military weapons exist.  Now, setting aside such weapons as anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns, recoilless rifles, and guided missiles, to name a few, and looking at personnel weapons, there are still many kinds to consider. And, I don't suppose you are suggesting that assault weapons -- whatever they are -- are anything like anti-tank weapons, or anti-aircraft weapons, or recoilless rifles. And, if we are referring specifically to personnel weapons, there are several categories of those. Categories of military personnel weapons include: light machine guns, submachine guns, assault rifles and a variety of pistols. And military personnel weapons also include sniper rifles and shotguns, too, and, let’s not forget flame throwers. So, if, by assault weapon, you mean a machine gun, or submachine gun, or assault rifle, or sniper rifle or pistol or shotgun or flame thrower, I point out to you that an assault weapon can't be like any one of those weapons because none of those weapons are of the sort that are readily available or accessible to civilians, although it is not unheard of that well-financed criminal cartels can and do often obtain many of those weapons. What I mean to say is, if a law-abiding American citizen who is a civilian wishes to possess a true military weapon, the BATF must approve the sale of that weapon to the civilian and such a weapon is not easy to come by – that is to say – such a weapon isn’t easy to acquire through lawful channels and I emphasize the word phrase, 'lawful channels,' here. To begin with, true military weapons – and I am here talking about military weapons qua military weapons, not some ludicrous, ersatz idea of a pseudo military gun that antigun zealots, such as yourself, and allied politicians and the mainstream news media concoct – are prohibitively expensive for most Americans. Moreover,  an American citizen, who is a potential buyer of a military weapon must undergo an extraordinarily detailed, rigorous, comprehensive federal background check, and he must wait a solid year before taking possession of such a weapon – that is to say – before taking possession of a true military weapon.  Now, of course a solitary criminal gang member or well-financed criminal syndicate or cartel would almost certainly have little difficulty in obtaining a true military weapon. And that person or criminal syndicate or cartel would do so on the black market, but obviously criminals won’t be able to do so nor would they likely try to obtain such weapons through lawful channels as that would entail, once again, a very rigorous and complete and stringent and comprehensive BATF examination process and procedure, which we both know criminals couldn’t possibly pass. They would therefore obtain their weapons -- would have to obtain such weapons if they wished them -- on the black market. And, neither a State nor the Federal Government regulates that, albeit some Federal agencies within the massive federal bureaucracy may be more or less aware of those black markets -- probably more aware of them than less so, which may say something about those agencies, and our Government, and the ease to which criminal enterprises, in particular, obtain such weapons.BCE:  ‘Look, I am only referring to common weapons that the average person can now obtain through a gun dealer. And I am talking about common weapons that the average person should not be able to buy; and I am talking about weapons that no rational, sane person would ever want or really need. I’m talking about weapons that, first of all, look like military weapons.’SAS: ‘So, you’re saying that, if a weapon happens to look like a weapon the military might use, that’s what you mean by an 'assault weapon?' You’re talking about appearance alone, then?’BCE: ‘Well, yes and no.’SAS: ‘Would you care to elaborate?’BCE: ‘Sure. An assault weapon is generally black. It often has a long projection underneath the body of the gun.’SAS: ‘Do you mean the ammunition magazine?’BCE: ‘Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. And, it might have a cone on the end of the barrel.’SAS: ‘Are you referring to a flash suppressor?’BCE: ‘Yes, I guess that’s what that thingamajig is: the flash suppressor.’ And an assault weapon is a kind of weapon that often has an angry, hateful cover over the front end.’BCE:  ‘I take it you’re referring to the barrel shroud.’SAS: ‘That’s exactly what I mean. You know, the weapon just looks evil and, I daresay, acts evil.’SAS:  ‘Well, I’m not sure what you mean by a weapon acting evil. People may act evil. But, inanimate objects, lacking will and intention, cannot, realistically, act at all. But, as to your idea of an assault weapon appearance, I understand what you’re getting at. Still, apart from this apparent evil look of firearms that you call assault weapons, you’ve said nothing about the weapon’s mode of operation.’ BCE:  ‘I was getting to that. An assault weapon sprays a lot of bullets at one time.’ So, it’s not just the appearance I’m talking about, as I have indicated to you before. It’s the manner of operation.’SAS: ‘How many bullets is a lot, if I may ask?’BCE:  ‘You know, more than a little; probably more than 10.’SAS: So, let me get this straight.  An assault weapon is a gun that is black, has a flash suppressor, an extended magazine, and a barrel shroud. In a few words, an assault weapon is a weapon that just looks evil. And, oh yes. It’s a weapon that happens to shoot more than 10 rounds.’BCE: ‘Well, that’s the general idea.’ It’s like a machine gun.SAS: ‘Do you understand how a machine gun operates?’BCE: ‘Not really. But, I have a general idea. It’s a gun that can spray a lot of bullets all at once and really fast.’SAS: ‘Well, machine guns are weapons that fire rounds with a single pull of a trigger. Machine guns are not readily lawfully available to anyone on the civilian market.  Once again, a person has to go through a very rigorous background check handled by the BATF before the BATF will permit an individual to purchase a machine gun.  And machine guns are not like military styled weapons.  They are in fact military weapons. So, when you’re talking about a firearm’s operation you must be referring to another manner of operation. Are you perhaps referring to semiautomatic operation?’BCE:  ‘Yes. I think I’m referring to semiautomatic operation. What’s semiautomatic operation?’ And, in what way does that differ from what I presume is automatic operation of a military weapon?’SAS: '‘Semiautomatic operation,' in simplest terms, means that, for each successive pull of the trigger, a round is fired from the weapon. Now, that can easily refer to the operation of a wide range of weapons. But the expression semiautomatic is also limited to a certain kind of firearm. The term is used in reference to firearms that utilize the energy of the cartridge itself to load a second round in the chamber. That isn’t the case with revolver handguns, which may be double action or single action but which do not use the force of the cartridge to load another round in the firing chamber. Rather, as the term, 'revolver' suggests, another round is chambered via a revolving cylinder, either through a trigger pull, as in the case of double action (DA) revolvers, or by manually drawing back the gun’s hammer – that is to say, cocking the hammer – for single action (SA) revolvers. But, I assume, by use of the expression, assault weapon, you aren’t referring to a revolver handgun at all.’BCE: ‘Yes, that’s true. The expression 'assault weapon,' as understood by antigun proponents – and I am proud to say that I count myself as one such – refer to evil looking weapons that, as you’ve explained, are semiautomatic weapons. But, then, are you saying the term 'semiautomatic' doesn’t apply to military weapons at all?’SAS: ‘No. I’m not saying that. The military does in fact use many kinds of semiautomatic weapons. And many of those weapons are in fact handguns. But many weapons, assault rifles, for example – and please don’t confuse assault rifles with assault weapons – the latter of which are merely a fiction created by politicians, antigun groups, and the like and are talked about in your typical mainstream news sources, while the former are true military weapons – are full automatic or selective fire weapons. What I mean by 'selective fire' is that the operator of the weapon is able to change the mode of operation of the weapon from automatic to semiautomatic fire through a selector switch.''Now handguns are used by the military as well as by the police and by civilians. The military handgun is semiautomatic in operation as are those sold in the civilian market. The military does not typically use handguns in offensive roles; they are essentially defensive arms. On the other hand, police forces often do use handguns both in an offensive capacity and in a defensive capacity. But police operations are usually, if not invariably, distinct from military type operations, although this, unfortunately, appears to be evolving or, perhaps, I should say devolving as police departments are quietly, systematically, inexorably undergoing changes, becoming para-military forces. So, the landscape of the Nation is changing, as we see American Governments, at all levels, beginning to view the American populace -- average Americans -- with more suspicion, and less respect and, so. And this is becoming unmistakably and disturbingly clear, as we see the First, Second and Fourth Amendments of our sacred Bill of Rights, in particular, eroding.’BCE: ‘Well, I’m not sure I agree with your assessment there if you’re suggesting that the changes you’re seeing are necessarily a bad thing. After all, the world is a more dangerous place now and, as our political leaders have said, the entire world – including the geographical land mass of the United States -- is one large war zone or, potentially, at least, a war zone’ -- a war zone, then, without borders.SAS: ‘Well, now you are simply echoing the usual sound bites you hear in the news. You are internalizing propaganda, which is precisely what the transnationalists who truly govern this Country and the Western World want you to think.’BCE: ‘Oh come on! Who’s catastrophizing now – me or you? That’s simply conspiracy theory.’SAS: ‘. . . And the words, 'conspiracy theory,' too, that you recite, are wholly made up. When the Government wishes to avoid a debate, it is quick to charge the dissenter with the appellation conspiracy theorist. But, we are getting off topic. We were talking about this thing that the media and antigun types, such as yourself, call an 'assault weapon.’BCE: ‘Yes; and an assault weapon is a military styled weapon both in appearance and function.’SAS: ‘Well, once again, if you wish to argue aesthetics, there isn’t much to say.  But, you realize, of course, that I can take any weapon you happen to give me and make it look like a military weapon. Making cosmetic changes to a given weapon doesn’t change the nature of the weapon, though, as the nature of a weapon is more a function of the weapon’s operation and less so of its looks.’BCE:  '{Getting frustrated and falling back on his first remarks} Look, when I call a weapon an 'assault weapon,' I’m talking about a weapon that shoots a lot of bullets, really fast.’SAS:  ‘In that case, virtually any weapon is an assault weapon as the vast majority of weapons – regardless of their looks and regardless of their function – can shoot a lot of rounds very fast. You might as well say any firearm is an assault weapon or is potentially an 'assault weapon.'  And, in fact, that is what you and others who believe as you do really want the public to think.  That is your endgame. Place more and more weapons under the nomenclature of 'assault weapon' and then ban them all. That is what you really want. You wish to place a ban on all weapons. And you aim to do so by including more and more of them under the label 'assault weapon.' So, since all firearms are essentially, ultimately, and irrevocably, in your mind, assault weapons, all firearms will be, or ought to be, banned. And, that, eventually, is what you want to see.’BCE: ‘Well, that’s certainly true. I’m not going to deny that. Personally, I think we would all be better off if all guns were banned.’ Only special groups of civilians  should have access to them.SAS: The so-called "elites?" ‘But, getting back to the Santa Barbara incident, you’re telling me that guns are to blame for that? And, did the shooter have a firearm that you refer to as assault weapon?’BCE: ‘You have the newspaper. What does it say?’SAS: ‘Well, I have seen no reference to an assault weapon. So, I guess the killer didn’t use an assault weapon. The Times Article says merely that the police recovered a semiautomatic handgun from the deceased killer’s car. And the Times left the matter at that. But, a semiautomatic handgun isn’t an assault weapon. Or, perhaps, you are saying it is. Because, once again, I have to say, I really don't have any idea what you mean by the use of those words. They are bandied about so often and subject to so many differing definitions and interpretations and circumlocutions -- most all of which emanate from politicians and media who have very little if any concrete knowledge of firearms -- that it is impossible to understand what firearms fall under or are meant to fall under the appellation, 'assault weapon,' at any one moment of time or at any particular place in time.'BCE: ‘You seem to know quite a bit about guns, but you don’t really understand much about assault weapons do you? The meaning of the expression is very clear even if, granted, I, myself, don't know much about guns and, quite frankly, I don't want to know anything about them, other than that they shouldn't be around. Now, I have heard of the term, 'semiautomatic.' And, some semiautomatic handguns are assault weapons and some aren’t. Let me tell you, the people who wrote the NY Safe Act, for example, are experts on assault weapons! Granted, you may know more about military weapons, but the people who wrote the NY Safe Act know more about the kinds of guns that lunatics and criminals use and the kind of which many otherwise law-abiding Americans, unfortunately, really want, but certainly don't need. The favorite weapon of lunatics and criminals and "gun nuts" -- the weapon of choice -- is, far and away, the assault weapon. The Legislators who drafted the SAFE Act explained clearly which semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns are assault weapons, and which aren’t. If the Santa Barbara shooter’s semiautomatic handgun was an assault weapon the Times reporter would’ve told us so. That’s an important fact, don’t you think?’SAS: ‘If you say so. Still, for all that, I believe you’re putting too much emphasis on the gun and not enough on the person responsible for the mayhem.  Look, the reporter for the Times wrote considerably about the killer’s delusion. And, the killer certainly wasn’t selective about the items he used when he went on his rampage. The Killer used a gun, yes. So, his gun of choice obviously wasn't an assault weapon. But he also killed several people with a knife, and he ran two people over with his car. So his weapons of choice weren't limited to firearms either. So, you can certainly see that virtually anything can be used as a weapon. And, if the semiautomatic weapon that the shooter used wasn’t an assault weapon, it still was an effective weapon, and I grant you that. But, then, as you must agree, so was the knife and the automobile he used to kill or maim others. And, yes, I understand, as you say, that knives have utility. And, I know you’d agree that automobiles do too. But, contrary to what you’ve said to me earlier, I would argue that guns have utility too. They are used in hunting and for target shooting. And, I would also point out that guns are the most effective self-defense option for many law-abiding American citizens who happen to be just average folk, like you and me, not police officers, or federal agents, or secret service agents. And, perhaps, most importantly, firearms are the best expression of an American citizen’s personal autonomy – a point rarely, if ever, made! So, let me make it here.'BCE: ‘Perhaps. But, many people who keep guns at home end up killing themselves, either accidentally or purposefully. Or, a child gets a hold of the gun and a horrible accident occurs. So, even if a gun has proved effective in saving a life once in a while, more tragic deaths of innocents have occurred because of guns than have been saved by them.'SAS: 'Are you so sure about that?' I would beg to differ with you on that.BCE: Well, that's beside the point I wish to make anyway. Certainly, you can’t discount the anguish caused by guns. Here, let me see that newspaper. {SAS gives the newspaper to BCE}. If you are willing to listen, I want to read something to you that I caught on the radio this morning. And, if you already read about this -- if it is in the New York Times newspaper, then let me read this to you again. This is very, very important. And, Yes, the New York Times does mention it – the father whose son was killed by the shooter. The newspaper makes very clear that the reason his son was killed was because of guns and because of gun manufacturers and because of an irresponsible Congress and because of the NRA: ‘The father of Christopher Martinez, one of the men killed in the shootings, emerged to offer a brief and emotionally wrenching denunciation of gun advocates and policies that he said lead to the death of his child. ‘This death has left our family lost and broken. . . . Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven irresponsible politicians and the N.R.A. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’s right to live. When will this insanity stop?’ There. What can be more poignant than the grief a father feels for a child who died and who did not need to die and who wouldn’t have died but for guns?’ There's no better argument against gun possession and gun ownership than that! I defy you to deny that!SAS: ‘Hold on a moment. I understand well enough that you are against civilian possession of and ownership of guns. I certainly get that. But you’re now telling me that the best argument against guns you can muster simply boils down to the words of a man who’s in extremity, having just lost a son needlessly? You would agree, would you not, that this man might just as readily have lost his son to a knife, as others in this incident had lost their lives. The man was grief stricken not over guns, but over the loss of his son. Let’s not lose sight of that fact. The man lashed out. If his son had died by knife, wouldn’t the man have argued for a ban on knives? And, if not, then why not? Would the man simply have kept his mouth shut? Would the man be less upset were his son to have been killed by the killer’s knife or if his son had died having been run over by the killer’s automobile? The man’s son wouldn’t be any less dead if he were killed by knife or if he were run over by an automobile! Let’s be clear about this. The man wasn’t talking rationally. The man was upset because he lost his son. The implement utilized is unimportant. If the man felt his son wouldn’t have died but for the gun, the man might well have been sorely mistaken. And keep this in mind: no one has suggested – certainly The New York Times hasn’t suggested – that the Santa Barbara killer showed a marked preference for one implement over another as he went on his killing rampage. So, let me reiterate that point. Clearly, the Times newspaper found it useful to take a stab at the NRA and at Congress and at America's gun manufacturers, and used the artifice of one man's grief over the death of his son to editorialize its own position about gun ownership and possession in a news story when such editorializing belongs solely in the op-ed section of a newspaper. It is in the op-ed section of a newspaper that opinions are supposed to be expressed -- not in a news report. So, if you want to argue ethics and morality, let’s have at it, because, as I see it, the real issue here isn’t really about guns at all, or about knives, or about automobiles. It’s about ethics and morality, isn’t it? The issue of guns is really a makeweight to support a philosophical position on the manner in which a society should be ordered. So, if its ethics and morality you want to talk about, I am perfectly happy to talk about ethics and morality with you.’ BCE: ‘By all means.’ Look. I'm not an idiot. Of course, a killer could use many different items to kill. And, I'm sure Mr. Martinez wouldn't be any less upset if the killer had murdered his son with a knife or if the killer had deliberately run his son over with the killer's automobile and had killed the man's son that way. But, if guns were unavailable, that would be one less item that a killer might draw upon to kill. The way I see it, gun possession and gun ownership is just plain wrong -- morally wrong. The average law-abiding American citizen who is a civilian doesn't really need a gun today and, therefore, shouldn't have access to one. The only Americans who needs guns are police officers and soldiers. And soldiers don't need guns unless they are overseas fighting. Soldiers, too, don't need guns when they're on a military base at home or on a military base overseas. We know many of them have emotional problems or are likely to develop a mental illness, so it's the better practice that they don't have access to guns either once they come back to the United States.SAS: So,  America's soldiers shouldn't have access to firearms either except when its convenient for the Federal Government to send them overseas and they happen to find themselves in a free fire zone? No emotional problems overseas, just potential problems at home, then, right?' But, we can talk about this Country's obscene disservice to its own servicemen and women another day. ‘Okay, then. If I can, let’s clarify the moral issues and assumptions here from the standpoint of guns and gun ownership and possession since that's what you're so sensitive about. I know that you aren’t interested in hearing about the right of an American citizen, as an individual, to keep and bear arms as set forth clearly and succinctly in the Second Amendment to our Constitution and as made abundantly clear by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller case and the 2010 McDonald case. So, I won't lay out the myriad legal arguments in support of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country.  You've heard many of those arguments many times before anyway, I'm sure, and, as you and your friends and allies in the antigun movement both inside this Country and outside it aren't swayed by those legal arguments in support of gun ownership and possession in the United States, regardless of the merits of those arguments, there's certainly no point in my rehashing those arguments to you now. So let’s talk, then, about gun ownership and possession from the standpoint of ethics and morality alone. Your argument against gun ownership and possession – from the standpoint of pure ethics – boils down, I believe, to this: (1) Innocent people and not so innocent people die from gun violence; (2) Even though some innocent people, who wish to possess guns, have saved themselves or their loved ones with their guns, still, more people, innocent and not so innocent, have died through gun violence than have been saved by and through guns; (3) now, if it is true that more lives, innocent and not so innocent, have been lost through misuse of guns than innocent lives have been saved because of guns, society is better served if law-abiding citizens are denied access to guns even if some innocent lives are lost in the process, having been denied access to guns. Is that a fair assessment of your position in support of a gun ban – a total or general ban on gun possession and ownership by law-abiding civilian American citizens?’BCE:  ‘I suppose so.’SAS: ‘That’s a thesis for utilitarianism and, more generally, it is a thesis of consequentialism of which utilitarianism is a component part. For the utilitarian consequentialist, the nature of the good is a function not of an agent’s intentions or motives but only of the consequences of an agent's actions upon others and, more precisely, of consequences to society at large. So, what operates to benefit the maximum number of people is deemed to be a morally good consequence. Antigun proponents, such as yourself, look only to consequences of actions, and give no thought to the agent’s intention or reason for doing a particular act. Indeed, antigun proponents do not consider whether the agent’s intention for acting is moral or not or whether an agent’s act serves to benefit the agent or not. They do not look at or try to assess an agent's motivations for acting at all. Antigun proponents look solely to the outcome or outcomes of the agent's action in respect to the larger polity or to society as a whole in the determination of the moral worth of a particular action by an agent. BCE: 'And, I must assume you do not hold to utilitarianism. And, you are essentially correct. Where gun violence is concerned, I would argue that any talk of good or bad motive is irrelevant to morality. Motives and intentions are internal to the agent. They are superfluous to any discussion of morality here. Ultimately, it is the outcome of an agent's action that is really important. For, it is the physical outcome of an action that can be assessed and measured. One's inner motivations and intentions cannot be seen. It is the effects -- the actualization of an agent's motivations and intentions that, alone, are important. For, it is in the effects that motivations and intentions have their dire impact. So, while it may be of academic interest to discuss whether one’s intention is good or bad – that is to say good or evil – and while it may be of academic interest to discuss whether one’s action serves to benefit the agent himself, what is really of importance here -- what is really important to society -- is whether the agent's action serves to benefit society as a whole or not. So, then, a morally good action or outcome is one that benefits society; and a morally bad action or outcome is one that does not benefit society and the morally best action or outcome is one that maximizes the benefits to society. Only consequences of actions to society, then, matter. One’s motive in doing x is irrelevant.  And, benefit to one’s self is irrelevant. So, I do agree with your assessment of the ethical theory I hold to. As I look only to consequences of actions, I am a consequentialist, and, as I believe that the best action, the most moral action, is the one that maximizes the benefit to society at large – that is to say – that serves to maximize utility. So, yes, I am a utilitarian or, to be more accurate, a utilitarian consequentialist.  As you know, I am strongly opposed to gun ownership and gun possession except by select groups. And many people both inside this Country and outside it, would agree with me. And, we antigun proponents are well aware that millions of guns are present in this Country and that millions of law-abiding American citizens own guns and, too, that most law-abiding American citizens are responsible gun owners, although, for the life of me, I don’t know why anyone would want a gun. It’s quite unlikely, to my mind, that a person would need a gun for protection. That’s why communities have police departments. After all, I think you would agree that a tragic accident would be more likely to happen because of a gun’s presence in a household than from its absence due to an outsider breaking into a house and attacking the home’s residents.’SAS: 'Well, the police have no duty to guarantee the safety of any individual. The role of the police – at least the traditional role of the police – is to provide for the common welfare of a community, and that does not extend to securing the life and safety of each individual member of the community. The public isn’t generally aware of that fact, and apparently you aren't aware of that fact either. Yet, be that as it may, we aren’t concerned here with what the police can or can’t do or what a police department ought or ought not to do on behalf of a given community or on behalf of a person within a given community. We are talking now about the import of particular ethical theories and the manner of their application. So, we begin this discussion on the implication of your assumption that more good individuals as well as bad have been harmed by guns than have benefitted from them. For, I take it, that it is on the truth of that assertion that you, and those who seek to ban guns, ground your moral argument for gun bans. And that goal, banning guns, to lessen the harm caused by guns for the maximum number of people, the innocent as well as the bad, namely, the not so innocent, conforms to your utilitarian precepts. Now, while I, myself, have no sympathy for "the bad" among us who have come to harm whether by means of a firearm or no, you, apparently draw no such distinction between the innocent among us and those who are morally reprehensible who have come to harm by means of a firearm. You look only at the lives that have been lost to firearms, not the nature of those lives, and, so, you lump the innocent lives that have been lost to firearms' violence with the bad among us who have lost their lives to firearms' violence. I would argue that more innocent American citizens have been saved through access to firearms than would be otherwise true if such individuals did not have access to firearms and it is the innocent lives that alone, it seems to me that ought to be considered the relevant factor from the perspective of utilitarian consequentialism. And further to that point, I would like to drill down to the salient issues here. For the critical note of contention between us, in terms of competing ethical theories, rests on the import of raw numbers, because, for you, it is raw numbers that are important and, indeed, critical, to any discussion of morality and any discussion of the merits of this or that ethical theory. For me, on the other hand, much more is at stake when discussing morality generally and, further, in considering the merits of a particular ethical theory, as you shall see. Shall I continue?'BCE: 'By all means, continue.'SAS: 'People such as yourself who look to what they believe serves to bring about the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people in society – the total well-being of society – fail to consider the importance of the individual. For, what benefits the individual may not – granted – maximize utility, but a moral theory that fails to account for the actions of the agent and fails, as well, to account for what serves or does not serve to benefit the agent’s own best interests is, to my mind, a vacuous theory and, in fact, trivializes what it means to be a human being and, particularly, trivializes what it means to be an American citizen, living in a democratic Republic. For, under the doctrine of ethical utilitarian consequentialism, one person’s happiness must be sacrificed for the benefit of others. That means that justice, fairness, the sanctity of the individual – all go out the door. They must all be sacrificed at the altar of utility. Thus, you and other ethical utilitarian theorists are indifferent to – indeed, must be indifferent to – how the good is distributed in society since you look only to what benefits society -- what best serves the greater hive – what best serves society as a whole. This idea comports with and percolates throughout ethical utilitarian consequentialism and it is the only thing that utilitarian consequentialism considers as it accounts for fundamental fairness and decency and seeming concern for one's fellows. However, I would say that utilitarianism, far from professing a concern for humanity, and, less so, professing concern for what best serves American citizens, has nothing to say about and therefore cares little about notions of fundamental fairness, decency and concern for people. You proponents of gun bans are actually cold and calculating and in fact ruthless. For, to care first and foremost about maximizing utility for society as a whole, and, indeed, really caring only about maximizing utility for society as a whole, you must care less about the needs of the individual -- of maximizing utility of and for the individual, which is not the purport of utility maximization anyway. In fact, maximizing utility means maximizing benefits to and for the greatest number of individuals, collectively. So, utility maximization has nothing to do with individual American citizens as individuals. What ethical utilitarian consequentialism is about is maximization of utility for the masses -- maximizing benefits for the masses. and, the benefit to the individual reduced to a nullity. Indeed, maximization of utility for the masses entails minimization of utility for the individual. For the ethical utilitarian consequentialist, such as yourself, numbers alone are what is important -- maximizing benefits for an undefined and altogether amorphous mass. Where is the compassion and concern for a person in all of that?  Moreover, if the well-being of the individual ceases to have any real importance to you, why profess concern for faceless numbers, anyway? There is something peculiar, even altogether bizarre, in holding to the sanctity of humanity in terms of raw numbers because you then lose sight of and you cease to focus on what is really essential, and that is the sanctity of the individual. For, happiness or suffering is what the individual feels. A nameless, faceless, indistinguishable blob going under the general appellation, humanity, does not feel pleasure or pain. Only a person, the individual, feels pleasure or pain.’ Utilitarian consequentialists altogether lose sight of the importance of the individual in running their cold calculations of utility maximization. Individuals become processed, diced, chopped up and compressed into a raw number  that serves as a surrogate for the individual. And that surrogate is the collective -- the hive.BCE: ‘Now see here! I take exception to your categorization of me and others like me as uncaring of individuals, much less that you see us as ruthless. When we seek to ban guns, this is clearly for the benefit of society as a whole. And I and my fellow supporters of gun bans care very strongly for the well-being of individuals too. All lives are precious to us. I am only saying that, if a life is to be lost to gun violence, it is better two lives be spared and one lost than one life is spared due to an act of gun violence and two lost. What I am saying  is that, from a utilitarian perspective, two innocent lives have more utility than one. You, however, clearly place greater emphasis and importance on one innocent life over the lives of the many. Where is the logic in that? Furthermore, –’SAS:  ‘Let me cut you off there. You misunderstand what I’m saying. And that misunderstanding causes you to oversimplify another's ethical viewpoint. And that misunderstanding binds you to one narrow ethical viewpoint. And that misunderstanding blinds you to the possibility of ever attempting to understand another’s ethical viewpoint. And that viewpoint cuts across your entire perceptual apparatus. You and other antigun proponents and fanatics -- and I do not believe I am engaging in hyperbole by using the word 'fanatic' here -- inevitably and invariably look at ethical conduct solely from the standpoint of consequences, and you refrain from giving moral credence to anything other than the consequences of an act. For you to even consider looking at the constituent parts of a moral act in any other way is superfluous to and even repugnant to your sensibilities. You take as axiomatic – that is to say – inherently true without the need for proof –  that the lives of two individuals, are more worthy than the life of one individual. And that ends the matter. Do you realize that by holding to such a narrow ethical framework, your assumptions entail an absurd conclusion? In fact, for you to hold that the lives of two individuals are worth more than one – that two lives have more utility than one, without looking at -- taking a serious look at the nature of those lives – you must also hold  -- as this follows from the premises of your ethical philosophy -- that the lives of two bad individuals are more worthy than the life of one good individual -- simply because, for you two lives are worthier than one life. Two bad lives are worthier than one innocent life because your utility maximization principle only factors in raw numbers. Qualitative differences among people are irrelevant to you. But, if you were to agree with me that the life of an innocent individual -- the life of one innocent individual -- is worth more than any number of lives of reprehensible individuals -- that the life of one innocent individual counts for more, much more than do the lives of hundreds, even thousands of reprehensible individuals -- that the life of one innocent individual is in fact infinitely more valuable than the lives of any number of terrible, evil, reprehensible individuals, then you have to concede my point, which is that numbers in themselves are less important than the kind of individual life we are talking about. But, if you maintain your point, that it is numbers, after all, that are most important to you, which is what the utilitarian consequentialist looks at when computing utility maximization, then I  can see -- indeed anyone can see, and with crystal clarity -- what is really behind the push for a universal gun ban in this Country -- a gun ban which will obviously impact the majority of American citizens -- the majority of whom are law-abiding American citizens. What those who adhere to utilitarian consequentialism, such as yourself, truly seek, is control over the masses, grounded on the idea that the American citizenry is simply an incorrigible mass of random bits of energy. By removing from that mass the means to defend itself from harm, you also remove any possibility -- however remote -- that the mass can inflict harm to itself or to others. Maximization of utility is not a matter, then, of reducing gun violence in this Country; nor for that matter is it a matter really of reducing violence by any other means. It is really a matter of population control exerted by a select few against the perceived random impulses of the many. That any one individual suffers under the weight of utility maximization is, then, utterly beside the point. And, so we are at an impasse.' 'You and your antigun cohorts are so bound to the plausibility and inviolability and reasonableness of utilitarian consequentialism, you may actually believe -- indeed, may actually see no problem in believing -- that the lives of two bad individuals are, ipso facto, more worthy than the life of one good individual by the simple virtue of numbers and for the presumed need to exert control over everyone in order to maximally benefit the collective hive. And, if that is in fact the case for you -- if in fact you fail to realize the absurdity of the implication of your ethical position -- then our discussion is at an end. But, I wish for us to be clear about this, so that, as between us, there is no mistake -- no error -- in what I have posited here -- in my understanding of the utilitarian position of antigun politicians, antigun media pundits, and of other antigun proponents, such as you. So, as I see it,  for you and those like you, what it is that constitutes a morally good act is simply one that increases the total number of lives saved rather than lost, regardless of circumstances and regardless of the individual person's nature, and you do this by exerting control over the masses by means of taking the means of personal control from them. This is why antigun proponents such as you express less concern over the evil associated with the wrongful taking of a life by a criminal or lunatic, and why it is that you choose to emphasize the mechanism of harm – the consequences of the harm – i.e., the gun, the inanimate object. And this is why you minimize, deemphasize, reduce to a nullity, the inviolability of the individual. I, on the other hand, believe that a proper ethical theory must take into account (1) both the intention of the agent and the consequences of the act to the agent's self and (2), the consequences of the agent's act to others, if we are to properly assess the merits of a given action, that is to say, if we are to assess whether a given act is good or bad. But you – you avoid looking at the intentions of the actor at all, and emphasize the consequences of a given act on the multitude, instead, in order to ascertain the merits – good or bad – of a given act. And, the way to maximize benefit to the collective -- to society as a whole -- is to exert maximum control over it. The individual counts for naught. And, so, you and others like you – proponents of antigun bans and of various other antigun measures – give no thought to the intentions of the agent; nor do you give thought to the effect of an act on the agent himself; nor, for that matter, do you truly give real thought to the impact of the agent’s act on another person. Rather, you – and your antigun proponent kin – look only to the consequences of the agent’s act in relation to a nebulous larger group – the hive – on a multitude, on the amorphous collective – on society as a whole. And through the perceived consequences of the act alone on the hive – on the multitude – on society as a whole – do you and others like you ascertain whether the act is considered morally good or bad.’ This goal requires implementation of maximum control over the individual -- maximum compliance -- in order to maintain State security. And, one critical step toward that goal is implementation of a total, universal gun ban to the extent that such a goal is possible.BCE: ‘I don’t disagree with your analysis of my ethical theory. But, apart from postulating a few considerations for another ethical theory, you still haven’t actually clearly proposed one to counter that of utilitarian consequentialism. So if you have one in mind, I challenge you to propound it and we shall see if your ethical theory is in fact superior to that of utilitarian consequentialism that I and other antigun activists and proponents adhere to.’SAS:  ‘I will be happy to oblige you. And, to do so, let me use an example.’BCE:  ‘By all means, proceed.’SAS: ‘So let’s say you and your antigun friends in Congress win. You get what you want. A total gun ban is in effect in the United States. Now, you realize, of course, this doesn’t mean a psychopathic or sociopathic gang member, or lunatic, or other criminal deviant, can’t or won’t be able to acquire a gun. What it does mean is that millions of law-abiding citizens won’t be able to lawfully acquire guns or continue to keep the guns they had previously lawfully acquired, so that all guns lawfully acquired prior to the gun ban, must be turned over to the police. And, for you, for the time being that is enough as the Security States slowly exerts ever more control over the citizenry. Now, let us say the law-abiding American citizen – being a law-abiding citizen – will only attempt to obtain a gun through lawful channels. So, if those channels are foreclosed, he or she will be denied access to a gun. However, for the psychopathic, sociopathic deviants, and psychotics that won’t present a major problem. That certainly won't present an insurmountable hurdle. For, if such an individual wants a gun, that person will gain possession of a gun by whatever means are available to him. I think we can both agree that criminals of all stripes won’t be burdened -- certainly won't be overly burdened -- unlike the average law-abiding citizen. So, if a psychopathic gang member wants a gun, he will find a way to get one, as he always has, as he always will, so long as he is able to operate fairly freely, and he will do so with or without a total gun ban in effect. Do you agree and are you with me so far?’BCE: ‘Yes.’ Please continue.SAS: ‘Now, then. I’m your average law-abiding American citizen. And, let’s say I have, through time, gained proficiency in the use of a gun for self-defense and I safeguard the storage of it. But, I can’t keep it anymore. As I have said, the antigun proponents have won out and a Federal law is in effect, banning gun possession. The police know I have a gun. Why? Simple. Because the NSA knows everything about everyone and notifies the Department of Homeland Security that, in turn, notifies other Federal, State and local police throughout the Country as to whom has a gun or guns, what kind, and how many. And, as I am not immune from such oversight, I am paid a visit by Federal police or State police or by local police. I obligingly turn the gun over to the police along with all my ammunition. Now, let’s say that one week later there is a rash of break-ins of homes across the Country. And I unfortunately am caught up in that. A gang of toughs comes into my house. I had a gun to defend myself and my family, but no longer. The gang proceeds to rape my wife and daughter and kills all of us. Is society better off? Let’s say government statisticians and criminologists compile the data and run the numbers. They determine that, although law-abiding citizens, including many past law-abiding gun owners, have been killed in record numbers in their own homes -- and that the number of innocent American lives lost to  gun violence has increased over the number of innocent American lives that have been lost prior to implementation of the total gun ban -- still gun-related deaths overall -- when one tabulates the number of violent criminals whose lives have been lost since the total gun ban went into effect -- have dropped, perhaps significantly, perhaps not. The criminologists and government statisticians conclude, then, that, on balance, with a total gun ban in effect, more lives, innocent and not so innocent, have been spared gun violence than have been lost to gun violence, although, regrettably, unhappily, many innocent lives have been lost that otherwise would have been saved, due to the inability of millions of previous law-abiding gun owners to exercise their prerogative of self-defense with a gun. Now, a utilitarian consequentialist would say the act of banning guns is morally right because fewer gun related deaths result overall, notwithstanding that many law-abiding citizens – previous gun owners – have lost their lives because of the gun ban -- that is to say -- many previous gun owners have lost their lives after the gun ban went into effect, when otherwise they would not have lost their lives, precisely because they didn't have access to their guns. Your position – the position of the utilitarian consequentialist – is that some innocent lives lost – although regrettable – is acceptable, not morally objectionable.  To use the language of utilitarian consequentialism, the consequence of a total gun ban has maximum utility because, in terms of pure numbers, more lives are saved than lost through the gun ban, notwithstanding and irrespective of the fact that more innocent lives are lost because those individuals did not have a gun to defend themselves. Utilitarian consequentialism simply has nothing to say, or is otherwise neutral, on that little matter: American citizens have in fact lost their lives simply because they were denied the right -- to exercise their prerogative as American citizens -- to protect their own lives with a gun. To the proponent of gun bans – the utilitarian consequentialist – the loss of some lives suffices – serves, through their sacrifice, the greater good as more lives are saved than lost through a total gun ban. And that is good enough. Maximum utility accrues. The benefit to society with a total gun ban in place outweighs the cost -- loss of innocent life. You would agree with the truth of that conclusion and the morality of the outcome?’BCE: ‘Yes; of course. You, however, obviously do not. But, I’m still waiting for you to articulate your own ethical theory. So, if you have an alternative and a superior alternative ethical theory to  utilitarian consequentialism and if you’re ready, I’d like to hear it now. Do you subscribe to a modification of the utilitarian theory? If so, I don’t know of any.’SAS:  ‘No. I subscribe to a completely different kind of ethical theory. It’s one clearly superior to consequentialism,  generally, and to utilitarian consequentialism, in particular, for it looks to the behavior of the agent and to the distribution of well-being to self as well as to others, not merely to the notion of maximizing utility for the collective, for society, for the hive, that is to say, maximizing the benefit to the collective, to the hive, to society as a whole. There are, to be sure, several versions of it but they all fall under the rubric, deontological ethics. So, a morally good action is a function of the intentions, effects, and distribution of well-being to individuals qua individuals. And, here we are talking about the distribution of well-being to a human being qua an average law-abiding American citizen, in determining the moral worth of an action. In part, I believe it is important to consider the morality of an agent’s actions in terms of his own self-interest and if the act does, in fact, serve his self-interest, and, at one and the same time, I determine that the agent's action does not have deleterious consequences for others. If both conditions are met, the agent’s action can then be said to be morally good.’ BCE: ‘But –’SAS: ‘Now, I think I know what you’re going to say. So, hear me out. If you caught the last clause of my assertion, then you know I’m not at all suggesting a person might do an altogether reprehensible act and that I’m bound to hold that the act is, in the last analysis, a morally good act if the actor believes such act to be in the agent's personal best interest even if it harms another. For a person can hold a false belief. A murderer’s action is never meritorious even for himself because the murderer ought, readily and rightfully, to expect to receive a decidedly undesirable accounting for his action if caught. Such accounting – as, for example, suffering the death penalty – would hardly be in the murderer’s own self-interest. Hence, the murderer’s act is not morally good under a deontological ethical theory, as, for example, under ethical egoism. Let’s use the Santa Barbara incident as an example. Under the theory of ethical egoism, the killer’s actions are not morally good. Odds are that the killer didn’t even consider the ethical merits of his action. He only knew that he hurt inside and he intended to make others hurt, as he did. Several women had, apparently, rebuffed his advances. The killer wrongly concluded that, because some women were uninterested in him, all women would be uninterested in him. He also wrongly inferred, as a result of his delusion, that everyone was happy except for him. He wrongly inferred that it was the natural state for everyone to be happy but for him. In his delusional state he felt that he should make others suffer because he suffered. If the killer had thought at all about the consequences of his actions, he would have realized that his murderous actions would end very badly for him. He may, in fact, have realized this. Indeed, he may have welcomed a bad outcome; anticipated it. And, of course, he was either killed by the police or took his own life. The Times news Article is unclear on that point. In any event, under ethical egoism, as under any deontological ethical approach, murder is always immoral. And, you will note I did not appeal to a normative theological argument here although, personally, I believe that morality – what constitutes a good or evil act – emanates from a supreme being. And the appeal to a supreme being as the source of morality is an independent argument against the doing of an evil act. But, it is enough, right now as you can see, that my ethical stance, as propounded, is at odds with yours and I don't have to appeal to a higher power as the source of and for moral conduct. That said, it is nonetheless true that a deontological ethical approach to an assessment of the moral worth of one’s actions is certainly consistent with theological considerations although such theological considerations are antithetical to consequentialism for the simple reason that no appeal to intention under consequentialism is made. For, under the ethical utilitarian consequentialism that you espouse, the ethical merits of the Santa Barbara killer’s actions are not to be and cannot properly be ascribed to the killer at all. Such a consideration is simply and irrefutably irrelevant to utilitarian consequentialism. Rather, under utilitarian consequentialism the gun -- the inanimate object -- alone is critical to an assessment of all ethical considerations, not the intentions of, motives behind, or the actions of a sentient agent. The utilitarian consequentialist looks only to the consequences of the act, namely the fact that a life was unlawfully taken and that the life was taken violently. And, for all that, the antigun proponent, activist, fanatic -- as utilitarian consequentialist -- looks to one particular inanimate object, the gun, in assessing the moral consequences of the act. This is why I pointed out to you earlier that you and others who support your cause – proponents of gun bans and other antigun measures -- are, in fact, cold, calculating, even ruthless, notwithstanding that you and others, who share your beliefs concerning guns, outwardly express concern for the victims of gun violence. That concern is feigned. That expressed concern -- public recitations, histrionics and media theatrics -- for the victims of gun violence isn't really a concern for individual victims at all. That concern is, ostensibly, for a warped sense of the well-being of society as a whole. And that concern for the well-being of society as a whole -- a nebulous concept at best -- has really nothing to do with the well-being of the individual -- indeed, that concern for the well-being of society is clearly and demonstrably contrary to the well-being of the individual. You antigun zealots, proponents, activists, fanatics simply seek to maximize utility for society – for the collective – for the hive and you seek to do that through control of the individual. Gun violence, for you and for others like you who profess to support gun bans, is particularly messy -- not so much for the loss of innocent lives but, rather, because it disturbs societal order. So you and others like you – antigun proponents, activists, fanatics, zealots – argue for the elimination of the gun and not for the elimination of the actor – the psychopathic, sociopathic killer or lunatic -- who is responsible for the violence -- who alone is responsible for the violence. So, for you, the inanimate object is the real immoral actor, rather than the sentient person -- a very strange notion. For you, the ethical consequences of a given act are construed only from an odd consideration of the mere fact of killing -- altogether removed from any consideration of intentions and motives, and removed, too, from any consideration of the agent’s actions on other individuals, and irrespective of the distribution of well-being among individuals. The point I am getting at here is not to denigrate consequences of actions, per se, but, rather, to place the notion of consequences in the context of the actor and in the context of those whom the consequences of an act actually and immediately affect. In other words, my moral scheme emphasizes acts and the motives of individuals and emphasizes the impact of acts on individuals as individuals, not as members of an amorphous hive or collective.  My ethical theory does not, contrary to the utilitarian model, stand aloof from a consideration of motives, intentions and acts by and against individuals. The utilitarian model, on the other hand, merely considers ethical conduct as a function of maximizing utility for some nebulous broad-based societal construct. Under your theory, utilitarian consequentialism, predicated merely and, indeed, solely, on the notion of maximizing utility for society – you seek  to make the point that, if killers don’t have guns, fewer people will die – at least through the mechanism of guns and that's that. But, as people don’t live in bubbles, and, as substantial numbers of evil people walk about in society, it is reasonable to assume that violent homicidal acts will continue to occur whether guns are available to killers or not. So, if guns aren’t readily available, killers will simply kill through such other means as made available to them -- a point made poignantly clear in the Santa Barbara incident. And, as the law-abiding citizen has no access to a firearm, that citizen's life becomes that much more vulnerable because the best means to secure that citizen's life, safety  and well-being is no longer available to the citizen. And, that is the real point  a reader should take from the Time's news story -- not the rage of a parent who lost a child needlessly and who, frustrated, lashed out incoherently at gun manufacturers, at supporters of the Second Amendment, and at the NRA.''As the majority of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens, and as few gun deaths arise from the acts of law-abiding citizens, gun deaths will continue unabated, even under the weight of a total gun ban which you antigun zealots  envision for this Country. Violent acts against innocent individuals, whether through use of firearms or through other means, by deviants, including gang members, homicidal maniacs and other criminal and delusional  sorts and will probably rise, as innocent individuals will no longer have the best means available to them to prevent violence against them. But then, you antigun proponents, activists, fanatics and zealots aren’t concerned about any of that because for you -- adherents of utilitarian consequentialism – morality is neither a function of the killer’s motivations for killing nor of the impact of the killing on the killer or on others. Rather what is moral or not for you is predicated solely on the consequences of killing and, for all that, through the particular tools or mechanisms or implements used. Antigun proponents thus ascribe morality to implements of violence, particularly the gun. So, from your ethical frame of reference, if the gun didn’t exist, it is reasoned, fewer deaths, overall, will occur, even if violent deaths to one segment of the population -- those accruing to innocent American citizens -- actually increases; control over the masses will be improved; and utility for society will be maximized. And that’s what matters to you. And that's all there is to it. But, that view of morality as held by you antigun proponents and zealots is singularly bizarre because notions of right and wrong are properly ascribed to actors not to objects. By removing the moral act from the actor and thrusting it onto the object, one loses perspective. Through it all, one emphasizes objects to the exclusion of actors. So, when all is said and done, whose ethical theory is really superior here?’BCE: ‘Are you done?’SAS: ‘Not quite. Let’s now consider how we might apply the deontological approach to another case. So, consider an act of self-defense. A criminal breaks into a house one evening. He lunges at the homeowner with an axe. The homeowner has a gun and shoots the criminal, killing him. The homeowner’s act is considered morally good under a deontological theory, such as ethical egoism. His intention, protecting his life, certainly serves his self-interest, regardless of the means by which he did it. He certainly doesn’t have to suffer retribution from society for having the wherewithal to protect his own life -- or certainly shouldn't have to. And his well-being is maximized because the consequences of his act, killing a would-be killer to save his own life, does in fact serve his own best interests. Still, antigun proponents might take the homeowner to task just the same, raising absurd questions such as: Did the homeowner really have to kill the criminal? If so, did he have to do so using a gun? Couldn’t the homeowner have retreated safely to another room in the house? Couldn’t the homeowner have tried reasoning with the criminal? Didn’t the homeowner have a duty to try to deal rationally with the criminal? In fact under utilitarian consequentialism, we may reach the clearly absurd result that the consequence of the act, the killing of a house breaker who sought to harm an innocent person, was a decidedly immoral act insofar as, or, indeed, precisely because the utilitarian consequentialist perceives the homeowner’s use of a gun to protect his life as having a deleterious ethical consequence – harming the well-being of society as a whole, because harming another with a gun, regardless of the reason and motivation and distribution of well-being to  one's self undermines a benefit to society as a whole, undermines societal utility, undermines the ability of society to exert control over the individual. The presence of guns in society, for the antigun proponent, harms society, so the action of protecting one’s life with a gun, when weighed against costs and benefits to society, comes up short.''So, while utilitarian consequentialism doesn’t view a person’s conduct, as morally good or bad, it does look to the moral merit of using a gun at all. Since the consequences of using a gun to harm another – regardless of the reason for using the gun – is what’s important to the antigun proponent and activist and zealot who holds to the ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism and, as society is harmed on balance through use of a gun to harm another at all, then, regardless of the reason for such use, the mere use of a gun, even for the rational purpose of self-defense, is considered a morally bad act -- a morally bad consequence for society as a whole. The antigun folk might argue that the criminal’s life also has worth and may even be worthier than the homeowner who kills him, albeit the homeowner acted rationally in self-defense. The antigun proponent looks to the costs of gun use in society, as a whole, and to the numbers of people – both good and bad – who are killed by guns and to society's  ability to control -- to restrain -- or to be unable to control and restrain the individual conduct. The intentions of the individual are zeroed out of the equation and that means the sanctity and inviolability and the singular importance of the individual as an individual is as well zeroed out of the equation.' 'Occam’s razor cuts through this hogwash. Utilitarianism raises issues that need not be raised and should not be raised in the context of ethical considerations. And, for all the considerations the ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism raises and for all that utilitarian consequentialism concerns itself with, the most important ethical concern – certainly the most important consideration under an ethical deontological approach, namely, the well-being of an innocent individual – is left on the sidelines, to mourn for itself in solitude. This, to me, is the fundamental concern I have with the antigun proponent’s ethical theory -- utilitarian consequentialism -- and the fundamental flaw I see with that ethical theory; and this is the salient concern I have with antigun proponents. On the surface it would appear that you and those like you profess a concern for human life.  But, that really isn’t the case at all. You and other antigun proponents posit the consequence of gun use – even in one’s own self-defense – as morally reprehensible or, at least, morally dubious. However, if loss of life – especially loss of innocent life – were your real concern, then you would be or should be equally concerned about anything that a killer may happen to use to take a human life with. But, as with the Santa Barbara incident, little is said about violence with knife or automobile, even though some people were killed by a knife and a second was mangled by the killer’s BMW automobile. So, something else is at work here. And, it may even be that antigun proponents are dupes. You believe the salient problem is guns. But, there’s something going on below the surface. And, what is going on – what is really going on below the surface – is an attempt to control individuals. If a person – even a law-abiding person – has a gun, he or she is potentially difficult for a government to control. A person who has access to a knife, on the other hand, is a little easier for a government to control. Thus we see at the moment, at least, for people, such as you, a call for bans on guns and not, at the moment, a call for bans on knives. I find it curious and strange that utilitarian consequentialism simply shrugs off any concern for personal autonomy. Utilitarian theorists look only to the well-being of the collective – consider only what may or may not be in the best interest of or seeming best interest of the collective -- of society -- of the hive. To my mind such view is antithetical to and, in fact, repugnant to the principles reflected in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. We sacrifice those principles at our peril.’BCE: ‘Well, I’ve heard you out and I disagree with you on a number of points. But, I do not wish further to contend with you. However, I do have to ask you something. I'm curious. Suppose, I and my antigun colleagues do win and we are able to pass legislation at the Federal Level that operates as a total gun ban as applied to the average, law-abiding civilian American citizen. Would you and others like you – strong supporters of the Second Amendment – acquiesce to a total gun ban? I wonder because, given your ethical predilections, I really don't know what to think about that.SAS: ‘Well, let me respond forthrightly to your question and in the context of deontological ethics and more specifically from the standpoint of ethical egoism and, too, from the standpoint of the Bill of Rights and Natural law.  I believe that a morally good act is one that serves one’s self-interest without harming the interest of others. Guns are the best means available by which and through which a person may best protect himself and preserve his self-autonomy. If it were to come to pass that Federal Statutory law imposed a total gun ban on the civilian citizenry of this Country, I believe that an American citizen would have both the obligation, consistent with his rights under both the Second Amendment and Natural law and in the context of a moral imperative to do what is necessary to maximize that person's personal life, health, safety, and well-being, to retain a firearm. I understand that this would conflict with Federal Statute – although one might well argue that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution trumps Federal Statute and that, if such a total gun ban is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, then such statute amounts to an illegal law, if enacted, and may properly, be lawfully ignored. Secondly, a morally right act under ethical egoism or, more generally, under broader deontological ethical theory, is one that serves the citizen's best interests without harming others. Since keeping a gun for self-defense and, as well, to enhance one's personal autonomy, satisfies the moral imperative, it follows that retaining a firearm is morally right. Such act maximizes one's personal well-being. So I do not see any legal barrier or moral prohibition to an American citizen acting contrary to such federal gun ban and such act would be consistent with any  deontological ethical  theory. Yes, I understand that such action could result in legal sanctions if the Government should become aware of a citizen’s flaunting of federal law. But, if millions of individuals were to do what was necessary to acquire or keep their firearms, the Government would face insurrection on a massive scale if it sought to take action against those millions of Americans. Would the Government try to clamp down on the population? Perhaps. If so, Americans would realize without doubt that their Country is no longer a free, Democratic Republic but, in fact, a Totalitarian State. Civil War would likely break out. The public would realize that its leaders have no claim to legitimacy and they would be overthrown. A new Government would be created – one respecting the Bill of Rights, as the Founders of our Republic intended.’BCE: ‘So, we are indeed at an impasse. While the U.S. Constitution is important, I, for my part, am quite ready to give up many of the stated principles of the Constitution if it serves to bring our Nation into a new Age, consistent with the 21^st Century and consistent with the aims of the European community. You are aware and can appreciate, I think, that the world is a global community now, governed by economics encapsulated under the principles of neoliberalism. Guns have no place in the new world order. The United States may also have to give up some of its sovereignty for the benefit of the whole -- of the greater international society and that will undoubtedly require a substantial modification of the United States Constitution and, particularly, modification of a critical part of it, the Bill of Rights. You do understand this is for the best, don’t you?’ The very concept of a Nation State is rather old. It is well that we do away with it. We are already moving toward a North American Union,  predicated on neo-Socialist principles, similar to the EU.’ SAS: ‘Well, the truth comes out of an antigun proponent. I do, in fact, understand you. And, I understand what is taking place in the world, in the Northern Hemisphere, and in our Country in particular. But, you, I’m afraid, don’t really understand me. There is a battle underway for the hearts and minds of Americans. You have bought into the propaganda that floods the airwaves and is omnipresent in the mainstream news media. We shall see how this plays out. By the way, you may keep the newspaper. I’ve done with The New York Times!’ {With that the two men get up from the table, shake hands amicably and go their very separate ways}.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and All Rights Reserved.   

OF CHAINSAWS AND GUNS

Let’s start with four axioms.1)  Sensory data give rise to perceptions. 2) Perceptions form beliefs. 3) Beliefs create urges. 4) Urges compel action.Keep these four axioms in mind as you read through the following two thought experiments.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ONE

Let’s say you never heard of the word, ‘chainsaw.’ Still, the word comprises two separate words you’re familiar with: ‘chain’ and ‘saw.’ You have an understanding of chains and saws and conclude a “chainsaw” combines a “saw” and “chain” in some manner. But, you don’t know its purpose and want to know. You see a film. It’s about lumberjacking. You learn a chainsaw is a useful tool. You’d like to develop lumberjacking skills, and you sign up for a course. Among the skills taught, you learn how to properly use and store a chainsaw. You’re aware a chainsaw is dangerous if used improperly. You recognize its dangers and understand its utility. You assess risks and benefits and decide to buy one. You are willing to take responsibility for it. As an autonomous individual, living in a free society, no one forbids you from owning or possessing it.Soon, thereafter, the word ‘chainsaw’ crops up in news reports. You learn a maniac has gone on a rampage and murdered several persons with it. Individuals form grassroots groups to combat this new evil -- the chainsaw.  The organizations mobilize. They contact legislators. The legislators contact the newspapers and TV outlets. No one can watch TV or read newspapers without coming across articles about the horror of chainsaws. Politicians call for a ban. They write bills. Bills become laws. To own a chainsaw you must first obtain a license. Only police departments can issue licenses. You must pay a fee for the license. Once issued, you can buy a chainsaw. Some chainsaws are outlawed. Chainsaws must have certain dimensions. Battery powered or electric powered chainsaws are legal. Gasoline powered chainsaws are illegal. If you lawfully bought a gasoline powered chainsaw prior to the law banning them, you may keep it, but you must register it; and you have one year from the enactment date to do so, else you lose it. Disqualifications exist. Anyone convicted of a felony or a serious misdemeanor is disqualified. Anyone who’s under the care of a mental health worker is disqualified. Anyone who has ever taken antidepressants is disqualified. And anyone involved in a family dispute or disturbance is disqualified. If you own a chainsaw, the public looks at you oddly; you’re a potential threat to the “public order.”The politicians gauge public opinion. The public outcry for bans on chainsaws subsides. But, that’s not good. Politicians work with the mainstream media to keep the public focused on chainsaws. They enlist the aid of “experts” and think tanks to write on the evil of chainsaws. They silently, secretly hope another incident involving chainsaws occurs. And another incident involving chainsaws does occur. Newspapers write articles anew. News anchors comment. Legislators amend existing laws further restricting chainsaws. They incorporate new definitions for chainsaws. All chainsaws are equal -- equally bad. But, some chainsaws are worse than others. Under the old law -- the public recalls -- all gasoline powered chainsaws are illegal. Politicians realize they can’t ban all chainsaws outright. Many citizens own them. Millions exist, including gasoline powered chainsaws. Since politicians have already banned gasoline powered chainsaws, they write laws to ban a few more kinds of chainsaws. They come up with an expression to describe the worst sort of chainsaws. They categorize those chainsaws under the expression ‘assault saws.’ The mainstream news media begins to use the expression 'assault saws' when describing the worst chainsaws. The name, 'assault saws,' as predicted, catches on. “Assault saws” are illegal. The anti-chainsaw zealots create slogans and chants: "Get rid of 'assault saws;'" "commonsense chainsaw laws we can live with;" "chainsaw owners for commonsense laws;" "commonsense chainsaw laws save lives;" and, "a reasonable compromise on chainsaw control." As time passes, politicians include more chainsaws under the rubric, ‘assault saws.’The police keep a watchful eye on those persons who have bought ‘assault saws’ lawfully prior to the new laws. Now, you, of course, happen to own an ‘assault saw.’ You had purchased it lawfully before the ban took effect. Still you feel harassed by the laws. You’ve never felt depressed or anxious; suddenly you do. You decide to get rid of your ‘assault saw.’ You feel the fuss over chainsaws is unfounded. But, holding onto it is not worth the aggravation. You turn it into the local police department. The police department decides to keep it and uses it to build a new precinct. After all, why destroy a perfectly good chainsaw?

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TWO

The fact pattern here is the same as in “Thought Experiment One” with a slight twist.You see a film. It’s not about lumberjacking. It’s a horror film, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” The film concerns a maniac who hacks innocent persons to pieces with a “chainsaw.” The film leaves you physically ill. Of course, that’s the film’s purpose. That’s the purpose of “slasher” films. Months later, you go to a home improvement store and happen across shelves of chainsaws. You feel unaccountably ill and, at first, you don’t know why. But, then, you dimly recall images of chainsaws and maniacs and bloodied bodies. You wonder why a person would want a chainsaw or need one other than to commit a horrific crime with it – and you give the matter no more thought until the word ‘chainsaw’ crops up in news reports. You learn a lunatic has actually gone on a rampage and murdered several persons with a chainsaw. You’d never buy a chainsaw and wish no one would have access to them. You surmise: if someone believes he needs a chainsaw, he can buy a hand saw. That’s sufficient. You wish that Congress or the States would outlaw chainsaw ownership altogether.

ARE CHAINSAWS EVIL?

The terms, ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ apply to persons, not things. Yet, the public tends to ascribe those terms to inanimate objects. The mainstream media, consisting of TV, radio, newspapers, and the like, create a perception in the mind of the viewer or reader; and that perception molds belief.Beliefs are true or false. According to one theory of truth, if beliefs correspond or cohere to facts, they’re true; if not they’re false. The mainstream media seeks to create, mold, and alter public perception. That media, working in concert with, and likely at the direction of politicians and secretive cabals, isn’t concerned about truth. It works in lockstep with those individuals, groups and cabals to engineer deception. The goal is control over the masses.

THE PURPOSE OF THE “THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS”

The thought experiments provide a glimpse into how perceptions are created and how perceptions are reinforced. We are talking about how sensory data serves to create impressions in one’s mind. And we are, of course, alluding to guns. The thought experiments describe how one’s experiences impact one’s views about guns and how the SAFE Act of 2013 came to be. We are also alluding to the mainstream media’s collusion with politicians and antigun groups to foment confusion over and erroneous beliefs about guns.The mainstream media isn’t interested in providing news about the world as it is but on relaying information to produce a false image about the world it wishes the public to see. That world view posits guns as dangerous entities, having no positive use or benefit to an individual. That world view posits guns as evil – an absurd notion. For, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are moral concepts, properly ascribed, as previously stated, to persons, not to things. That world view posits guns as difficult for the average person to master. That world view posits guns as inherently and irrefutably dangerous. That world view posits guns as serving no tangible, societally acceptable purpose. That world view posits guns as anachronistic. That world view posits guns as incompatible with notions of decency and respectability. These ideas are all false or meaningless. The mainstream media feeds them to the public anyway.What’s behind the feeding of false data to the public? What’s behind the deception? What’s behind the desire to create – in the mind of the public – a set of false beliefs about the world? At the moment, we can only speculate. But, that it’s occurring at all is abundantly clear.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.________________________