Thursday, September 26, 2013

Guns are the 21st Century version of the 19th century Opium Wars

"Illegal guns, illegal guns, illegal guns drive violence,” Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy.
Even though the barbarians may not necessarily intend to do us harm, yet in coveting profit to an extreme, they have no regard for injuring others. Let us ask, where is your conscience? - Lin Zexu (1839), Letter to the British Monarch asking the Opium flooding into China be stopped.
The Opiate of the Masses is not, as it was claimed Religion but, a false sense of Power and Security. Guns provide many with a flase belief that they are in charge of their lives and the world overall.

I know some gun ethusiantists. They firmly assert that when the day comes and the Tyrannical Government comes to steal their guns "they" may win but there will be more of "them" laid out dead after they've taken the last full measure.

While, there are a small kernel of Gun Nuts who have an deep longing to unleash their inner demons and engage in an orgy of gun fueled murder and bloodshed of liberals and Government bureaucrats while believing they are the Righteous, most gun owners don't want this but are ready to defend themselves and their rights.

It is nothing more than a false sense of power. And it's embraced by the Gun Nuts for the same reason that people turn towards drugs.

Which leads us to the Opium Wars of the 1800's. 

As Europe began to exert dominance over the world in the 1700's, the British East India Company was the World Trading Powerhouse, especially in Asia and the Orient.

Of course, other European Powers had interests and control, the Dutch, the Portuguese had Macau, the French had some interest in China and the Spanish Empire had the Philippines, but the EIC was the original Corporation which had the backing of the British Crown and Military.

While most of the world succumbed to the British model of trade, invasion and subjugation, trade with China proved a tremedous drain on the British Treasury.

The Chinese Empire with over 3000 years of contiunous history (at least theoretically) demanded silver in exchange for the Silk, Tea, Porcelain and other resources they traded with EIC and Europe.

Thus the British hit on a brilliant idea. Having conquered India, British merchants began to flood the Chinese countryside with Opium made in India, reversing the flow of silver. The situation became so bad for the Qing Empire and their people that after failed edicts and bans the Qing Emperor requested a direct appeal be made to Queen Victoria (it never reached her) to stop the drug importation and spare his people the harmful effects of drug addiction.

But, what happened instead was the importation of Opium increased every year (in the mid-1800's it reached the same amount as was produced in the world in 2000), and the British engaged in the Imperialist Wars which resulted in the imposition of Trade treaties extremely favourable to British "interests".

The Opium Wars were bad for China but, they directly led to the Taiping Rebellion, the bloodiest Civil War in World History, the death and slaughter wasn't eclipsed until World War 2.

Today we are facing analogous problems. The Gun Crazies are akin to the Opium Addicts and the Firearm Manufacturers flood this Nation (and others) with their Guns, not caring about the death and mayhem their product is causing, are very much similar to the opium importing East India Company and other merchants.

Firearm Makers also have their political wing, the NRA and other Gun Lunatics, to help enforce humiliating treaties on the American people forcing all of us to live under their* interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

But, again, why do people turn to Guns? Because of the feelings the gun ownership evokes, the brain chemistry it triggers and the false power and control, which many America feel slipping away from them, it rekindles.

The gang bangers in Chicago are the prime example of false power and control. Leaving aside whatever the circumstances which led them to their current situation, the acquisition of the gun has given them the belief that they are powerful and need to be feared and respected.

When they lash out at rival gang bangers or track down some "punk" whose disrespected them it's the feeble lashing out of those who are, in reality, powerless. Nonetheless, their blind random shot selection has real and terrible consequences.

Similarly, those Gun Nuts who've taken to parading around in the open with their whizz-bang tactically outfitted AR-15s or wave their piece around when someone dares to tell them to stop driving recklessly or shoot at cars which dare to touch their sacred driveways are the same as the Chicago-land criminals and filled with the same false sense of power.

Additionally, the "responsible" gun owners who can't be inconvenienced to properly secure their weapons are like the deluded denizens of an Opium Den. Lost in the fog of their delusions they leave their weapons unlocked, uncased, loaded and readily accessible and the result is an accidental shooting of a child.

Thus, right now we are doomed to suffer more Mass Shootings, more preventable deaths, more gun murders, more road rage shoot-outs because we're hooked on the Gun, the most dangerous drug ever made.
*- the view of the Second Amendment that 350 million guns and more every year should be readily available and no restrictions of any kind can stop an American from buying a gun are the views of the Firearm Makers who don't care about what their guns do as long as more are sold.


Constitutional Insurgent said...

Interesting post. Of course, I don't agree with the majority of it, but I try to avoid assigning motivation to a demographic that I'm not a party to.

Just like the gun control crowd, we have our own who our almost our own worst enemy. But thankfully, they're not the majority.

ChickenHammer said...

So, DC vs Heller, which side did you root for?

Grung_e_Gene said...

Con Ins,

Of course,you're an addict. But, you can't help yourself. I forgive you.

Chicken Hammer,

The question is: Do you agree with DC v. Heller?

Right now the NRA and every ultra-reactionary on TV declare they do not agree with the majority decision, which found: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings

Gun Addicts are now pushing that Gun Free Zones are responsible for the shootings. Addicts always want to expand where they can use they drug and damn those who don't want to put up with their addiction.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Of course,you're an addict. But, you can't help yourself."

You're very correct. I'm addicted to liberty and mu responsibility to protect myself and my family with tools commensurate with the threat.

I also endorse and support your right to relegate that responsibility to the State.

Grung_e_Gene said...



Well, I'm going to have to face it: You're Addicted to Guns.

Might as well face it. You're Addicted to Guns.

I don't regulate anything to the State. Next month I'm invading Canada to stop the Keystone XL tar sands from polluting my water table. Wolverines!!!

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Might as well face it. You're Addicted to Guns."

Using this sort of 'logic', this would mean that you're addicted to State security, and willful victim-hood.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Out of curiosity, as I don't believe all of your points are without merit, or don't warrant debate, can you source the following statement:

"the view of the Second Amendment that 350 million guns and more every year should be readily available and no restrictions of any kind can stop an American from buying a gun are the views of the Firearm Makers who don't care about what their guns do as long as more are sold."

I believe you've relied on this meme before, but haven't seen any foundation for it. When I want to point to the element of the gun control cabal that supports a ban on the private ownership of firearms, I at least source the position.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Con Ins,

I wish they're was a "music note" icon to be used alongside things.


That's a modification of Robert Palmer's famous song (and more famous video) Not meant to be an argument :)

As to the your disputation of the

There's unspoken and spoken arguments. Just because someone (say Wayne LaPierre) gives a press conference where he claims to support background checks one watches what the lawsuits and legislation and lobbying he and his organization actually does.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"That's a modification of Robert Palmer's famous song (and more famous video) Not meant to be an argument :)"

I see that now! I should have known, most of my formative years were in the 80's. And I did have kind of a thing for his 'band' in the video.

"There's unspoken and spoken arguments."

OK. But the NRA [for example], has not ever come out in support of a complete refutation of measures to keep firearms out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally ill. In fact, quite the opposite.

Whereas, in the reverse, when the gun control folks say that 'nobody wants to take away your guns'...I can actually point to primary sources that belie that statement.

toma said...

"the view of the Second Amendment that 350 million guns and more every year should be readily available and no restrictions of any kind can stop an American from buying a gun are the views of the Firearm Makers who don't care about what their guns do as long as more are sold."

I believe you've relied on this meme before, but haven't seen any foundation for it.

You don't think the NRA has anything to do with it? Some gun nut opens fire on a Naval shipyard and LaPierre laments "There weren't enough good guys with guns." He's not arguing that there weren't enough good guys. He arguing that there weren't enough guns. We have almost twice as many guns per capita than any other country on the planet, and the NRA complains that we're under-armed. Proof enough for ya?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"He's not arguing that there weren't enough good guys. He arguing that there weren't enough guns."

And your statement would be incorrect, wouldn't it? A firearm is an inert tool. It does nothing by itself, no matter how badly some want to demonize it.

toma said...

The fuck? So you're autistic? OK. Fine. I will type slowly. My statement is correct. That's what LaPierre said. If there weren't enough "good guys with guns," he did not mean that the shipyard was full of bad guys. He meant that the good guys should have had more guns. OK?

But you made a nice attempt there. Really, you did. If a thing can't move, how dangerous could it be? Right? Good try. But a Hydrogen bomb is an "inert tool" as well. So why can't everybody have one? Why can't Mark Levin have one? Why can't Iran have one? They're a little more difficult to make than a cruddy old atomic bomb, but the project is certainly do-able. So why is it a bad idea to let your neighbor keep one in his garage?

Ricin is about as boring a substance as it gets, but the cops won't let me keep any of it around. Sarin. Grenades. Toe missiles. They're just things. Bazookas. White phosphorus. Napalm. The government are Nazis! TNT. C-4. Ballistic missiles. Also lysergic acid diethylamide, methamphetamine and cocaine and heroin. Hitler! Anthrax. Botulism. Crappy second-hand body armor. None of it has a soul, why can't I own it?! Gas gangrene. Hold on - I can't own animate things either? I can't have slaves? I can't kidnap my favorite pop singer? I can't have a harem! Freedom! AK-47s! Jeebus!

The argument that a nuclear bomb is okay because it isn't exploding 24 hours a day, that it can sit there quietly before it wipes out Las Vegas, is a bad argument in favor of allowing citizens to assemble and stockpile them. We don't allow people to keep modern cannons and artillery because they're horrible. Nobody should have a Browning automatic rifle, or a bunch of grenade launchers. These are tools of mass slaughter, designed to wipe out hundreds of people in a minute, or two.

The M-16 does the exact same thing, it just does so by means of smaller caliber. It's got no business being sold and kept in decent society. But then with folks like you around, how decent could America ever be? You'll always demand access to whatever the Army is sporting because you're grasping, panicky and paranoid. So we'll forever have mass shootings of poor defenseless children. Because you never feel quite right. But screw your neighbors! Screw your town! They're lucky to have a freedom fighter like you around! You worked tirelessly to create exactly the society you prefer, where people even more fucked up than you have the last spectacular say, leaving piles of elementary school students piled up on our lawns. Acts of war are a small price to pay for weapons of war, right? Right. Nothing should ever prevent anybody from buying a wicked Bushmaster .223. Sherman tanks! Dynamite! America!

Constitutional Insurgent said...

My, that's quite the hyperventilating rant you had going there. But, sadly for you, you seem forced to rely on the fundamental ignorance of the legal definition of "individual arms" in "common use" well as the ignorance (or willful deception) of the types of firearms that are legal for any citizen to own.....and those which would actually qualify as "weapons of war".

Grung_e_Gene said...

David Barton the go to "Historian" of the Ultra- Reactionary Right Wing Religious Zealots claims that the 2nd Amendment allows people to own tanks and Jets;

Now this is where a lot of liberals go through the roof; are you saying that you think individual citizens have a right to own a machine gun?

Yeah. And an Abrams Tank, and a bazooka, and a F-16 because you've got a right to defend yourself with the same size of weapons that might be brought against you ...

Republicans fight against Background Checks for gun purchases, which she called "eroding our Second Amendment Rights", but is working to hurt her constituents by telling them not tip apply for ACA coverage.

Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) told MSNBC’s Alex Witt that she was not advising her constituents to sign up for the new health insurance exchanges.

“I will say that our [Tennessee] Department of Commerce was very concerned about Navigators not having background checks."

The NBC Sports Network announced on Saturday that the show “Under Wild Skies” will no longer air on the network.

“And they said but they’re so big and special and they’re smarter,” NRA lobbyist Tony Markis said of his critics. “And I went, you know, Hitler would have said the same thing.”

Read more at: