This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• The Gun Control Fantasy
• Andrew Sullivan's proposed solution to gun violence
• The Metastasis of Corruption and Violence

The Gun Control Fantasy

Gun control is one of those issues that politicians use to bash each other or to make money from. Like it or not, there are already 310 million non-military firearms in the United States, and you'd have to have an IQ of 50 to think that some gun control law, even if it passed, would have any effect on that number.

Let's take a quick look at some similar issues:

• Do you remember Prohibition? How did that work out? (By the way, we recently celebrated the 79'th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition. Cheers!)
• There are plenty of illegal drugs, but (I'm told) anyone who wants illegal drugs will have no trouble obtaining them. Some people say that keeping drugs illegal is a good policy anyway, to prevent sending a message that they're OK. Others point out that keeping drugs illegal creates a huge industry of drug trafficking, giving rise to drug cartels in Mexico and elsewhere. Prohibition created a huge industry in bootlegging, which mostly went out of business when Prohibition was repealed.
• Abortion. I did a little research on this in the 1990s. There are countries, especially Catholic countries, where abortion is illegal, and other countries where it isn't, but the figures I saw indicate that illegality made no discernible difference in the rate of abortions.
• Prostitution is illegal almost everywhere in the United States, but prostitutes are easily available. Anti-prostitution laws promote prostitution rings as big business, joining with drug cartels.
• Porn and child porn became explosively available on the internet in the 1990s, and during that period, incidence of child sexual abuse plummeted by 35%. Making porn and child porn unavailable increases child sexual abuse and makes children more vulnerable, while today's computer software can produce products without exploiting women and children.

The point is that people of all political stripes have this erotic fantasy that they can pass a law to make anything happen. The truth is that anyone who wants get drunk, get stoned, get an abortion, get porn, use a prostitute, or be a prostitute, can do so, and there's no evidence that prohibitions do anything but promote drug cartels, prostitution rings, and other forms of organized crime.

So, with 310 million non-military guns already available in the United States, you'd have to be a fool to think that any gun control law will accomplish anything.

"But," you say, "we have to do SOMETHING. There are kids being killed in our schools."

Well, I'm as scared of guns as anyone. I've never held a gun (except water pistols) and I don't belong to the NRA. I don't really care whether gun control laws are passed or not, except that they have very negative consequences, as do prohibitions against other things -- alcohol, drugs, abortion, etc.

There's only one SOMETHING that I've heard that will protect kids from being killed in our schools -- the NRA proposal to use retired policemen, marines and soldiers to protect schools, on an optional basis for those cities and towns that opt to use them.

I can only marvel at the sheer stupidity of the people on the loony left making vitriolic attacks on this proposal, but it shows the state of politics in the U.S. today. The proposal is certainly worth considering, as it's the only proposal I'm aware of that might actually do some good.

Andrew Sullivan's proposed solution to gun violence

When Colorado Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in January, 2011, left-wing commentator Andrew Sullivan described where the blame should lie. According to Sullivan, the shooting was caused by Sarah Palin, who put a map on her web with with a little cartoon target on the state of Colorado:

"An Assassination?

Map appearing on Andrew Sullivan's site

When a congresswoman is shot in the head in the very act of democracy, we should all pause. This is fundamentally not a partisan issue and should not be. Acts of violence against political figures destroy democracy itself, for both parties. We don't know who tried to kill congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (she appears to be still alive) and we should be very cautious in drawing any conclusions yet about why. But we can know that, whoever tried to kill her and for whatever reason, political rhetoric involving words like "target" and "gun-sights" is inherently irresponsible.

For a public figure [Sarah Palin] who has appeared on a national ticket and who commands a cult-like following, the irresponsibility is even more profound. ...

Giffords was one of twenty members of Congress placed within metaphorical "gun-sights" in SarahPac's graphic. That is not the same thing as placing a gun-sight over someone's face or person. No one can possibly believe - or should - that Sarah Palin is anything but horrified by what has taken place. But it remains the kind of rhetorical excess which was warned about at the time, and which loners can use to dreadful purposes."

Andrew Sullivan's implication that Sarah Palin was responsible for Giffords' shooting was repeated by the mainstream media constantly for weeks, even though it's unlikely that the shooter ever even saw the Sarah Palin web page.

Now, fast forward to the week of the Newtown massacre of 26 children. Earlier in that week, we had Teamsters Union leader James Hoffa declaring "civil war" on the country, and we had and we have union thugs running around beating people and destroying property, all because of a proposed labor law.

The mainstream media repeatedly justified this violence by saying that the union thugs had a right to be angry. A number of left-wing loonies said that Fox commentator Steven Crowder "deserved what he got" when he was beaten by union thugs.

The union thugs were assaulting people on behalf of President Obama, and Obama said nothing, condoning and supporting the violence with his silence, implying that violence is OK as long as the victim "deserved what he got."

These expressions were all over the mainstream media, and it's likely Adam Lanza heard them. So in his troubled, twisted mind, he may well have thought that his mother and the 26 Sandy Hook elementary school children "deserved what they got" when he slaughtered them, and that President Obama would approve.

Union thugs, supported by the NY Times, NBC news, and other mainstream media, and supported by President Obama himself, have created a cultural environment that violence is OK as long as the victim "deserved what he got." There are numerous examples:

• James Hoffa has been declaring war on Obama's opponents for two or three years. In 2010, he introduced President Obama by saying: "We are ready to march. Let’s take these sons of bitches [Tea Partiers] out and give America back to an America where we belong." President Obama has had many opportunities to condemn this violence and call to war, but he's refused to do so.
• Obama and the mainstream media glorified the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) mobs, while they were committing violence and rape against anyone who disagreed or interfered with them.
• Charges of rape against sleazebag Julian Assange are ignored by the mainstream media and feminist groups.

President Obama's supporters, and Obama himself, are creating a cultural acceptance of violence towards anyone who "deserved what they got."

Now let's go back to Andrew Sullivan, who blamed the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords on Sarah Palin's "rhetorical excess," which "loners can use to dreadful purposes." Well, James Hoffa certainly used "rhetoric excess" when he declared war on President Obama's opponents, and Adam Lanza was certainly a loner who may have used Hoffa's call "to dreadful purposes." Has Andrew Sullivan written anything to condemn the violence of union thugs who support President Obama the way he criticized a little cartoon target used by Sarah Palin?

Piers Morgan on CNN recently called an anti-gun control advocate an "unbelievably stupid man":

"You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you? You have absolutely no coherent argument. You don't actually give a damn about the gun murder rate in America."

Actually, the stupidest man in America would have to be Andrew Sullivan:

• He advocates gun control which could have no effect on the murder of school children.
• He blames a small cartoon target for gun violence on Gabrielle Giffords.
• He ignores calls to war and actual violence by union thugs supporting President Obama, and doesn't blame them for the gun violence at Sandy Hook school.
• He vitriolicly opposes the NRA proposal, which is the only thing I've heard that might actually protect school children.

As Piers Morgan might say, Andrew Sullivan is an unbelievably stupid man who doesn't give a damn about how many children are killed in American schools.

The Metastasis of Corruption and Violence

I've previously described how corruption and violence have metastasized in America in the last ten years. At first, it was just Generation-Xers defrauding Boomers and creating the financial crisis. Since then:

• Obama's union supporters have declared war on America, and Obama, along with the mainstream media, refuses to criticize violence perpetrated on his behalf.
• Obama and his supporters have glorified violence and rape by OWS and anyone else who perpetrates a crime against a victim who "deserves what they get."
• There is massive corruption in Washington and on Wall Street and in the mainstream media. Respectable people are actually gangsters, and gangsters are treated as respectable people.
• The Obama administration adamantly refuses to prosecute any crook (bankers) who make a campaign contribution.
• Anyone who objects is called a "racist."
• Obama supporters, led by billionaire George Soros and Obama himself, have been calling for warfare and violence against Fox News.

These left-wing calls for war and violence may eventually trigger a right-wing response at some point.

In the past week, Facebook has suspended an account of someone who questioned the official story of the Sandy Hook shooting. Lt. J. Paul Vance of the Connecticut state police warned people posting "misinformation" on social media web sites would be "investigated and prosecuted." Vance said he confirmed with with "federal authorities," presumably President Obama's Dept. of Justice.

As I've written in the past, what's happening today parallels what happened in 1930s Germany. Germany's Lost Generation began with discrimination and isolated violence against the previous Missionary Generation. Corruption and violence metastasized into discrimination against Jews, and eventually the Holocaust. Anyone who objected was called a "Jew" or "Jew lover" by the mainstream media and politicians.

The fact that America today is on the same trend line as 1930s Germany does not mean that America will go as far as Germany did on that trend line.

However, there may well be what might be called a "Kristallnacht moment," an incident where violence by Obama supporters against Americans is so heinous that it forces the mainstream media and the left in general to make a "yes" or "no" decision whether to allow the violence and corruption to continue to grow.

I believe in America's institutions, and I believe that when the "Kristallnacht moment" comes, even the loons will come to their senses and reverse direction.

We actually have a modern day example of this. In Pakistan on October 9, the Taliban shot an innocent young girl, Malala Yousufzai, for advocating education for girls. This appears to be Pakistan's "Kristallnacht moment," and it caused revulsion throughout the country, at least temporarily. Sometimes the thugs go too far in their violence, and it backfires against the thugs. But we have to remember that the thugs never went too far for the ordinary people in 1930s Germany.

In the meantime, the amount of violence and corruption in America continues to grow. Let's close with Martin Niemöller's famous statement:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

At least I, Dear Reader, am willing to speak out.

Andrew Sullivan, January 8, 2011 and AFP and CNN and NY Daily News

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail