Establishment allows guns for pilots: But certainly not for patriots
The contradictions of the Establishment on the issue of firearms have become ever deeper in light of the discord caused by the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Americans are clamoring for security, which presumably also means the right of self-defense, and proposals to arm commercial airline pilots are receiving wide support. Why then, are nationalists and patriots undergoing harassment and defamation on the subject of firearms by governmental bodies and the media? Analyzing some interesting patterns in the “mainstream” media might help tell us the answer.
The Hartford Courant reported that the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners denied a handgun permit to Michael Gibbs, a 24 year-old leader of the World Church of the Creator, an organization which the board called “a recognized hate group.” Of course, the first question this author asked upon learning of the case is, “recognized’ by whom?”
The paper notes that “Gibbs passed criminal and psychiatric investigations.” Yet, Joseph Faughnan, police chief of the town of Clinton, Connecticut, stated, “[Gibbs’] involvement as a state advocate in the group made him unsuitable for a handgun.” This police chief’s decision suggests that those who hold “politically incorrect” beliefs lose their Second Amendment rights. Those who yearn for an America as clean and free as it was pre-1965 are about as popular as Osama bin Laden these days, leaving the Establishment free to disregard their rights.
One amazing quality of the Gibbs case is that it arose at the same time Senator Bob Smith (R-N.H.) successfully amended the aviation security bill proposed after the 9/11 attacks to allow commercial airline pilots to carry firearms. Arming pilots is certainly an excellent idea that should never have required debate in the first place in a nation that enshrines the natural right of self-defense in its Constitution. The danger exists, though, that the full scope and import of the right to keep and bear arms is diminished by overly focusing upon arming pilots so that they can defend their cockpits from hijackers. This laser-beam like focus is not coincidental, but a conscious strategy on the part of the Establishment to revoke the right to keep and bear arms at the same time they appear to allow its exercise.
After all, we already have a bogus, or at least incomplete, list of what the Second Amendment is “really for,” including deer and duck hunting, target practice, and repulsing criminals who break into your house. The Establishment now places fending off hijackers who storm cockpits on this “recognized” list. It would appear, also, that the definition of “recognized hate group” is those people and groups who dare to exercise their freedom of association while rejecting the Establishment’s “recognized” list of firearms ownership rationales-hence the smear campaign. All of the items on this list possess the virtue of being true, but they suffer from the vice of being tangential. The central reason for the right to keep and bear arms is too politically incorrect to make the list: the defense of liberty from governmental encroachment-the counterbalancing of power with power.
Indeed, resistance to governmental tyranny is actively discouraged from consideration for the “recognized” list of Second Amendment justifications. The Glasgow, Scotland newspaper, The Herald, ran a story by Ian Bruce with the inflammatory headline, “Backwoods militias suspected of being behind biowar threat.” The article consisted of the usual chop-job and recycled smear material, suggesting that there are various right-wingers prowling about in the woods waiting to inflict mayhem upon society. What makes this article noteworthy, however, is its assertion regarding the right to keep and bear arms that “there is some doubt as to whether this right is enshrined legally in the American constitution.”
Citing the power of lobbying groups such as the National Rifle Association, the article states, “no one has yet managed successfully to challenge the all-pervasive nationwide gun culture.” The reporter’s sadness that Americans are not as willing to surrender their rights as their brethren across the pond clearly shows in his writing. Unfortunately, all too few readers will take proper note of the ridiculous spectacle of a foreigner presuming to tell Americans how to interpret their own Constitution and conduct their internal affairs. Any nationalist and patriot should feel outrage that our “leadership” and many of our countrymen have allowed themselves to be so insulted.
Comparing the Gibbs case and the Scotsman’s smear article alongside the proposals to arm pilots is an enlightening exercise, as it foreshadows what is to become of the Second Amendment in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, the Second Amendment is to be selectively denied to those whom it was meant for most: dissidents. The Scotsman’s smear is correct to observe that America’s “gun culture” is entrenched, at least for another generation or two until our agents of socialization, such as the media and academia, breed it out of our children. Our Masters may not like that situation, but they have found a way to circumvent it, as the Gibbs case indicates. Those who fail to restrict their rationale for owning a firearm to the “recognized” list will be denied a permit-even if they have a clean record. This method guarantees that guns will only be left in the hands of those who will never use them anyway (or at least never in service of freedom).
Our Masters hope that such quiet, selective denials will not provoke opposition from the public. Let’s dash their hopes.