Alinsky #12 in Action

Update:

It has come to my attention that the 12,000 number often cited for gun homicides is, in fact, after all, actually excluding gun suicides. I knew over half were suicides, but the 12,000 number was the only number I’d seen until a claim I saw in the newspaper a couple of days ago of ~30,000.  I researched it, that number appears to be the correct ballpark figure.  I stand corrected. In my further research, I also found that of the total ~30,000 average gun deaths in the US, ~18,000 are suicides.  It still stands that of the remaining 12,000, about 70% are gang related, leaving ~3,600 non-gang related shootings, or about 1.12 per 100,000.   And it still stands that the number of those 12,000 committed with any rifles, assault or no, is on the order of 400.  “Assault rifles” aren’t the problem.

There is a concerted effort going on, right now — in your local & national newspapers, on your TV news, and in social media to defame, blame, and marginalize the National Rifle Association for the U.S.’s relatively high homicide rate compared to select other countries.

I’ve seen editorials comparing the NRA to the KKK, to the Nazis, I’ve seen cartoons depicting the NRA as holding guns to children’s heads (while calling The Obama’s children “brats”), and of actually shooting a person (lablelled as “Reasonable” Gun Control. Message:  You should be afraid of these crazy people — they’ll shoot at the slightest provocation!) and several like this one claiming that gun-rights “radicals” took over the group in the 1970’s.  Of course, none of this depicts anything the NRA is doing with any honesty.  They are everywhere. It’s Alinsky Rule #12, in action, on queue.

#12 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.”

This is exactly what is going on here, and the truth doesn’t matter (which is right out of Alinsky as well). The people currently in control of the Democratic Party are intimately familiar with the man and his tactics, his philosophy. Hillary even wrote a college thesis on the man (“Why did you mislead the American people?”   “What difference does it make?”). None of this is any coincidence.  It is to manipulate the publics’ emotions for however large a step they can take toward outlawing the law-abiding citizen’s access to effective defense against criminals and tyrants.

A NY Post article from Jan 11 was brought to my attention today, a rather suspicious sounding story of a supposed “gun enthusiast” and why he gave up his guns.  In it, he depicts NRA members as egotists who dream of dressing up and acting out their own Rambo movies, and compares apples to oranges (a common tactic) beteween number of gun homicides in the U.S. (34 per day) and Japan (11 per day) to show us all how effective outlawing guns can be.  He says:

“For an organization that blames America’s gun crisis on violent movies, the NRA in particular seems deeply committed to cultivating the notion that we can all be the stars of our own personal action flicks.”

Bullsh*t. The NRA is about responsible gun ownership, which includes responsible gun use. Half those 34 “homicides” a day are suicides, (self-homicide by choice) bringing your number down to 17 per day. Considering that Japan has less than half the population of the United States, we’re looking pretty good by that point.

Then 70% of the remaining 17 are committed by gangs, usually against other gang members. This is an unfortunate cultural difference between the U.S. and Japan (which has never had a high gun homicide rate). Those 17 homicides a day are not committed by NRA members. The people who commit the crimes are responsible for the crimes they commit. Not the NRA.

He then relates a story about how he actually deterred an intruder simply by racking his pump shotgun (see, it works!  And you usually don’t have to shoot!)  But then he  relates with a Hawkeye Pierciean agony how he then was moved to sickness and revulsion as he ended up vomiting over the idea of killing another human being.  Hell he didn’t even point the thing at him! How different would he feel if he had no shotgun,  and the intruder came in, tied them both up, raped his girlfriend right in front of him, robbed them, and perhaps finished them off so there would be no witnesses?

“I got my opportunity to play hero. Not in fantasy, but in real life, the chance to flex my finger with three pounds of pressure and shoot another human being dead in my driveway because he wanted to steal my TV. Right after we moved, I sold all my guns. I never wanted to put myself in that position again.”

He’s an idiot then. You are not allowed to use lethal force to prevent theft. The only time you’re allowed to use it is when you feel life or serious bodily harm is threatened. You can get the gun out, but you do not point it at anyone until an actual threat presents itself. During this kind of theft, you can sit there and hold the gun and demand they cease (without pointing it at them) and call the cops (without pointing it at them) and take excellent mental notes so that you can be an excellent witness — these are the kinds of things NRA members would know.

Infringing my right as a law-abiding citizen to effectively protect myself and my family from those who would harm us is morally wrong and unconstitutional.

To paraphrase another favorite liberal chant, “If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one.”

This entry was posted in Stop an Echo by philmon. Bookmark the permalink.

About philmon

Part mountain junkie, part decent amateur photographer, part survivalist, part not-so-decent amateur musician, part sysadmin. Husband, step-dad, grandpa, and music freak who digs mechanical clocks, barometers, and Gil Elvgren pinups. Studied Meteorolgy & Computer Science. And the U.S. Constitution.

6 thoughts on “Alinsky #12 in Action

  1. Half those 34 “homicides” a day are suicides, (self-homicide by choice) bringing your number down to 17 per day. Considering that Japan has less than half the population of the United States, we’re looking pretty good by that point.

    Even if the gun grabbers were right – that the US really does have higher per-capita rates of gun crime when compared to other Western countries (presumably ones with much stricter controls than we do) – I’d still have two questions for them:

    1) Are you sure you’re taking all of the cultural and historical factors into account? You liberals love to ask, “I understand that everyone over in Afghanistan is toting an AK-47. How’s that working out for them?” So the first thing I do is say, “I’ll see you United Kingdom and Japan….and raise you Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, and Israel.” The second thing I say is, “Instead of comparing Japan/UK to the US, why don’t you compare Detroit to Houston? Los Angeles to Phoenix?” Apples to apples, as they say. Gun controls vary widely just within the US.

    2) Even if you were right – SO FREAKING WHAT? 300 million firearms already in private hands in the US. Remember that number. There’s no conceivable way you’re going to get ahold of them all, or even a small fraction of them. I don’t care what laws you pass – they’re still going to be out there, even amongst the good guys. Jamaica passed a law in 1974 making possession of a single bullet punishable by life in jail….and within a few years it had six times as many gun deaths as Washington, DC. The laws didn’t get rid of all those Jamaican guns, and it won’t get rid of them in a country with 250 years’ worth of firearms ownership and tradition either. Why not just get real here, and forget the pie-in-the-sky disarmament fantasies?

  2. Right after we moved, I sold all my guns. I never wanted to put myself in that position again.”

    What position – the one of having the means to defend the lives of your family from someone with more on his mind than just stealing your TV?

    The Brady Bunch has been trying to claim for a few years now that stories like this are commonplace – in their words, that “more and more guns are being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.” They’re trying to advance the claim that the new normal is…..100 firearms among 100 people doesn’t mean those 100 guns are spread among 80 members of the group…that it means those 100 are spread among more like 10 members of the group. That the majority is selling off the one or two that they own and those are being bought by a relative handful of (rabid/crazy/unpredictable) gun nuts who have huge collections. That the group consists of 10 guys with 10 guns each instead of 80 guys with 1.2 guns each….when in reality I think it’s the other way around.

    I think what’s really going on is exactly what it appears to be – that lots of people are choosing right now to pick up a first or second or third firearm….AND veteran gun owners are picking up their 45th. Not necessarily just the latter.

    • In the aftermath of the Aurora, CO shooting, someone remarked that it should have been a disturbing sign that the perp had a rifle, a shotgun, and two pistols at home.

      Someone else said, “Whoopty do – you’ve just described the average male in Colorado.” Uh huh….and I added, “Indeed, there’s really no need to own more than that, not unless you just really like guns.” That’s about the collection of someone who simply hunts or shoots casually, rather than collecting them for the hell of it like some of us do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *