Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Using the Theater of Fear to Pass Unjust Laws

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In the wake of the Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut shootings, it is both unfortunate and predictable that the media-induced hysteria would be followed by a massive assault against gun rights in the United States.

In the subsequent campaign of fear and hysteria promoted by the mainstream media and elected officials, gun owners and gun rights activists have responded in a variety of ways. From public statements and debates, to lobbying, and simple outreach to those who misunderstand gun nomenclature or actual gun crime statistics, gun rights supporters have frantically tried to use all means at their disposal to have their message heard.

Also predictably, the anti-gun crowd promoters such as Piers Morgan, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of others have largely responded with vitriol, ad-hominem attacks, and factually inaccurate arguments.

Indeed, when analyzing the debate between the two sides, it is virtually impossible to give even marginal credence to the anti-gun argument in terms of a legitimate argument. As one who considers himself capable of examining an opinion in opposition to my own with reasonable objectivity in order to determine the merit of the opinion I held when I came to the table, I can honestly say that rarely has there been a debate in which one set of participants were so clearly wrong and off the mark.

In fact, the current gun “debate” bears a stark resemblance to the debate surrounding the passage of the PATRIOT ACT shortly after 9/11. Then, as now, a sizable portion of the population had been terrified by an event of a questionable nature into enthusiastically surrendering their freedom for a perception of security. Then, as now, anecdotes of Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s USSR, and MAO’s China were ineffective in staving off the mad rush toward a police/surveillance state. Then, as now, logic and reason were shunned in favor of the fear that drove the population forward into even greater bondage.

That fear still drives the American people headlong into a state of scientific dictatorship fueled by a philosophy older than all the world’s established religions and enforced by a steroid infused aggression and brute force that has existed for just as long.

Today, just as after 9/11, it remains virtually impossible to reach any individual who has made up his mind to be afraid and who has become personally and emotionally invested in a political opinion that he subconsciously sees as providing him with some level of social cohesion.

This is not to say, however, that we should simply give up on those who surround us and who do not share our opinion on guns or self-defense. Many are reachable, of course, and we should continue to reach out to them. We should never throw up our hands and retreat to the comfort of social groups made up only of people who believe and feel the same way as we do.

Still, we cannot and must not negotiate our rights with anyone.

Thus, we must also continue to push not only for a strong defense of our current gun rights as they exist, but an offense of repealing any and all gun laws within the United States. We must not be content to sit and watch the debate from a distance or retreat to our remote secluded areas in an attempt to avoid the fallout. We must immediately engage ourselves in the fight.

Never has a battle been won by an armchair warrior.

Indeed, silent support is not needed.

Opinions are valueless. Coordinated action is the only effective option.

Yet, with the track record of the U.S. Government and our pathetic excuses for elected officials in mind, it is an unfortunate reality that we may very well have to consider the act of civil disobedience this time around. Time and time again, our government has demonstrated that the civil liberties and Constitutional rights of its citizens are not so much an afterthought but an unguarded target.

For this reason, as I have argued in other articles, it is important for gun owners, gun rights activists, and gun activist organizations as well as gun dealers, gunsmiths, and manufacturers to join together in a coalition that allows them to retain their independence but exhibit a united front. The united front, of course, should be spearheaded by a set of demands and a program that can be agreed upon amongst these various individuals and institutions. In essence, a gun rights coalition that is uncompromising in its stance must be formed along the model of the Greek Syriza Party as I have described in my article entitled, "It's Time For The Aware To Take Action."

Regardless, with the disarmament agenda of governments and corporations in clear view, we must also be prepared to resist such oppression in a more directly non-compliant fashion. Merely depending upon lawmakers, judicial process, and the reason of government is not enough. Neither is tough talk on Facebook and other Internet forums if that tough spirit disappears at the first sight of adversity.

After all, there has been an assault weapons ban before. Various larger U.S. cities themselves have passed and enforced quite draconian gun control measures which are clearly in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, there was no widespread resistance was encountered because of the local or regional borders of the laws. There was no mass opposition movement. No coordinated political action. No real civil disobedience to speak of. Only a handful of tireless activists who were able to reverse a handful of horrific laws and policies through the legal process at a high cost to their personal fortunes.

In the midst of all these battles, gun rights proponents have often tried fruitlessly to reason with the anti-gun side of the aisle, doing their best to explain the true statistics of gun violence (which are actually irrelevant at the base level), historical anecdotes and comparisons, and even basic facts regarding the guns themselves to a growing portion of the population which has become increasingly connected to a fictitious world of television, trendiness, fear, and entertainment and disconnected from self-reliance, self-defense, courage, and reality.

Almost inevitability in every argument, the same terminology continues to creep into the discussion regarding “law-abiding citizens” becoming disarmed while “criminals” are able to access whatever weapons necessary for their ends.

Yet while the arguments are themselves correct, these arguments eventually force the question to be asked, “If guns become illegal, should we continue to be law-abiding citizens?”

At what point does the designation of “law-abiding” become a liability more than an asset?

With America’s own history of civil rights struggles in view, one must ask the question that has been famously asked before so many times in American and world history by a people or an individual who so desires his freedom and dignity that he is willing to give his life for it – “If this law is unjust or immoral, do I not have a duty to disobey it?”

Indeed, one does not have to look far in any direction to find an endless example of just such laws. Whether one chooses to look at the most popularly understood case of immoral statutes in Nazi Germany, where laws stipulated that if an individual were to hide a Jew in his house, whose only crime was being Jewish, then that individual himself was a criminal and one who could and would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Perhaps one could also take a look at Mao’s China, where laws and “legal” decrees ordered the forced labor and relocation, torture, and execution of tens of millions of people.

Or one could look at the Soviet Union which had “legally” binding codes of law that allowed for the incarceration of millions of political dissidents and those who simply spoke out against the state or opposed some injustice to be rounded up into concentration camps and psychiatric wards.

Were the citizens of these nations who snitched on their fellow citizens, condemning them to a life or death of torment, somehow given a moral pass simply because they were law-abiding?

At the end of the day, who does history judge as just and moral, the coward who alerted the secret police to a potential dissident or the man, who himself was terrified for his own well-being, made the decision that he would do the right thing, even if it cost him his life and provide an attic space for a helpless victim of his government to hide in?

Even the United States itself has no shortage of laws that have existed as an affront to basic humanity. Whether these laws be those which legalized slavery or those which stated that one man could eat at a lunch counter and one could not simply because of the color of his skin.

Let it not be forgotten that, for some time, the laws supporting slavery were once upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, a fact which should remind every citizen that resting safely on the assumption that politically appointed worker bees of the oligarchy are not the end of the discussion when basic rights are in question.

Indeed, it was Martin Luther King Jr., who was imprisoned on many different occasions for his disobedience to unjust legal decrees, who put to words the concept and questions I have mentioned above and which men and women have been asking for all recorded history, albeit largely in the wilderness of the mind and spirit.

“Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust,” he wrote. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

As King discovered, it also true that almost every man who at some point in his life has decided that his freedom and dignity are worth more than his perceived security or his expected custom eventually finds himself locked inside a cell. Any man that comes to the realization that his humanity is worth more than anything provided by his continued silence inevitably puts himself at direct odds with his government and, unfortunately, many of his fellows.

As H.L. Mencken once stated,
The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.
Thus, it is for this reason that some of the kindest, most gentle, and thoughtful people among us are often crammed into cells along with the worst. It is for this reason that these individuals, who desire nothing more than to provide for themselves and their families and to live their lives with basic freedom and dignity are hounded by the state and its thugs, often receiving derision from those that they wish to free in the process.

Unfortunately, there is coming a time when many of us will be faced with an unpleasant decision – obey an unjust law and continue to be “law-abiding” or disobey the law, stand for our freedom and dignity, and face the consequences of that decision.

There is coming a time when laws will be passed against our wishes and against our unalienable rights, where we are forced to decide whether or not we will concede yet again or whether we will stand firm and let the chips fall where they may.

Indeed, there may come a time when our government passes laws, whether they be incremental or sudden in nature, where it demands that we disarm or submit to disarmament. If this becomes the case, then we must echo the words, not without some sense of irony, of a man who took part in the slaughter and dislocation of so many in his own right, “They have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.”

While nothing in this article should ever be construed as suggesting, promoting, or desiring violent action or, indeed, confrontation of any nature, this article does condone the defense of our basic human rights and freedoms by any means necessary.

Violence in the absence of the overwhelming need of self-defense is never just. Nor does it yield the results that its initiators intended.

Still, it is not incumbent upon a people whose rights are being taken away to sit idly by as they are gradually dismantled from under them. The guilt of the results of violence rests on the shoulders of the aggressor.

Thus, if those in the halls of government decide to outlaw guns, then perhaps the American people should decide to become outlaws.

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 190 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

Arrogant Democrats think they know what is best for people, and actually believe they can better manage peoples choices.
Paternalism is one term for it. They believe they are being good and kind and showing leadership by telling others how to live.

Fear has very little to do with it, especially on gun control. After Obama turned into Bush3, Democrats have no way to differentiate themselves from Republicans. On the gun issue, Democrats get to feel morally superior again, and they love it. Arrogance, the stuff of Obama and Democrats.

FEAR. Fear mongering, that is the domain of Republicans and the right wing. It sells wars, it sells torture, it sells the Patriot act........and more than anything, it sells GUNS.

Ali said...

You're being paranoid. Sorry mate, but the facts speak for themselves - having such an arsenal of weapons out in the general community leads to greater use of said weapons - pure logic. If you want to stop all the needless deaths then you really have to reduce access to guns. If the majority of citizens don't want to then you just have to bear the consequences. What will you do if they held a referendum and the majority voted to introduce gun bans?

Anonymous said...

"having such an arsenal of weapons out in the general community leads to greater use of said weapons- Pure logic"
Not true.....look at the swiss, an assault rifle in almost every home. The UK banned guns....sure, less "gun violence" because less guns, but violent crime in general has tripled since the ban. Guns have always been around in America, folks on SSRI drugs is new. Semi automatic weapons are not new, yet suicidal rampages are....obviously not a gun problem. Making said weapons illegal will do nothing to prevent crime as making Meth illegal does nothing to prevent drug abuse. Laws do nothing to stop those who do not follow them. It is already illegal to bring a gun to a gun free zone, it's already illegal to point guns at children and shoot them. A person has to make a conscience decision to pull a trigger, we should start by asking why would someone do that, instead of focusing on the tools that have been around for centuries.

Co-opted Confederate said...

The top ten killers in the USA according to the U.S. "Goverment":
1. Tobacco use related deaths 529,000
2..Medical error, malpractice,accident,stupidity 195,000
3.Unintentional injuriess 118,021
4.Alcohol Abuse 107,400
5. Motor vehicle accidents 34,485
6.Unintentional poisoning(Hmm?) 31,758
7. Drug abuse 25,500
8. Unintentional falls (Hmm?) 24,792
10. FIRE ARM HOMICIDES (with Bullets) 11,493

Sources for thes numbers are the Center for Disease Control, the Federal bBureau of Investigation, National Highway Safety Administration and other Federal agencies.
When the Obama administration Covers the entire nation with foam padding, make it illegal to manufacture anything poisonous, lock up all doctors, makes all drugs and chemical illegal, Make all motor vehicles out of foam rubberand requires registration and a license for all blunt instruments,sharp pointed and edged objects and requires that baseball bats, tire irons, chains and then they can think about trying to kae away our guns

Anonymous said...

Guns per 100 people Murders per million people

Sweden 31.6 1.9
France 31.2 2.3
Canada 31 5
Germany 30 2


Impossible to conclude anything other than gun crazy USA has way more guns and way more murders. Apples to apples, guns to murder, the facts say it all.

Apples to oranges, falls to tobacco to car wrecks........whatever. Your nation loses 31,200 people to guns every year, suicide, accidents and murders. Another 75,000 people suffer gun shot wounds, 52,000 deliberate and 23,000 accidental. Those numbers are a shame and a result of too many guns, too many high tech guns and lax laws. Compare it to tobacco all you want, it has nothing to do with the core issue. Gun lovers sure do like to avoid the simple facts, opting instead for convoluted rationalizations of their support for this deadly $11 billion per year industry. Fools.

Mark McCandlish said...

@ Anonymous 8:07PM: But you don't see anyone ramming a Eurotopean Union down our throats and taking away our national sovereignty do you, "mate"?

Anonymous said...

If there weren't any guns at all I guess I could rob anyone with a tire iron or a sharp stick. It is the intent not the weapon. The aggressors would love to see us all disarmed which is the point. Some people would give up their guns and leave themselves defenseless leaving it up to the Lone Ranger to come to their rescue. Gun violence would triple in this scenario, especially if Monsanto has its way with total control over the food supply with the contamination of natural and organic crops with GMO cross pollination. Frankenfoods are a much bigger issue than guns. They can control the food supply and that could bring guns blazing in a full out survival mode. It's easier to kill a million people than to control them and they have been perfecting the art of depopulation for hundreds of years and starvation has been the choice for how many hundreds of millions of people and this always happened after total disarmament of the population.
These false flag events must come to light and be seen for what they really are. They want us all to be defenseless so they can mow us over at will. It's as simple as that.

Anonymous said...

There are a few people in this Fascist Police State who recognise the FACTS, that Obamanaiggert is a Marxist Fascist puppet bought and paid for by the Elitists gang of Nazi Communists who use these puppets to destroy whatever they decide to destroy. This table needs to turns and We The People have the right to Murder all of this trash before they murder tens of millions more of men, women, and children.
This will be Your Armageddon unless you get your head out of your ass and take control.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, 10:51, that Obama, even worse than filthy faggot W Bush. Most people thought that was impossible, but clearly Obama is worse than Bush, and about the same as Romney would have been. Brutal.

Ryan Hunter - Writer said...

Great post! Thank you for taking a stand.

Post a Comment