Bombs Bursting in Air

Happy Independence Day, everyone!

This may be the last 4th of July that is celebrated according to time-honored custom. The Woke Brigades are well on the way to victory in the culture wars, and they have determined that Independence Day is a WAYCIST occasion. The intention seems to be to elevate “Juneteenth” to fill the void left by removing our major midsummer holiday. Which is interesting, because all the statues of Abraham Lincoln are being pulled down, so we will be celebrating Emancipation without acknowledging the Emancipator.

There may be more than usual number of bombs bursting in air today, if the BLAMtifa battalions make good on their promise to inflict major damage at various prominent public locations. However, the last time I looked at the news, everything seemed to be proceeding more or less normally.

I’ll be hanging around here for a while performing my normal functions, and then I’m going to visit some friends for a traditional 4th of July celebration that involves burgers and adult beverages.

Dig ya later!

WordPress Shoots Down Western Rifle Shooters Association

My worthy compatriots at Western Rifle Shooters Association have been shafted by the WordPress Stasi. This is the message you now see when you try to load the site:

westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com is no longer available.

This blog has been archived or suspended in accordance with our Terms of Service.
For more information and to contact us please read this support document.

This is not the first time a deplorable blog has been removed by WordPress.com. I’m hoping that the site will eventually be restored under its own domain name.

Gates of Vienna uses the WordPress blogging engine, but I have my own domain and own my copy of the software, so WordPress can’t interfere with GoV at all. The downside is that it costs money to go independent (hence my recent fundraiser).

I’ll report any further news on WRSA as it comes in.

Update: WRSA sent the following message:

Gab is the current rally point; future moves will be there.

“An Armed People Shall Never Be Enslaved”

José Atento has written in the past about the remarkable similarity of the sabotage of Donald Trump and that of Jair Bolsonaro by the establishments in their respective countries. The Brazilian chapter of the Deep State is attempting to weaponize the coronavirus scam against President Bolsonaro. Sound familiar?

Note: The video included in the essay below was not subtitled by us, so be aware that there is a lot of vulgar language in the subtitles.

“An armed people shall never be enslaved”

by José Atento

Last time, I reported how the Brazilian Establishment was doing everything possible to overthrow Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro. At that time I mentioned the incident created by the early departure of Justice Minister Sergio Moro. Moro became a Brazilian national hero as the judge who led Operation Car Wash that put jailed powerful politicians and entrepreneurs, including former president Lula. Bolsonaro invited him to be his justice minster because Moro represented one of his causes: the fight against corruption.

Some pointed out that even though he was aligned with the fight against corruption, Moro was against some of Bolsonaro’s other positions. Contrary to Bolsonaro, Moro was in favor of abortion and in favor of disarming the population.

Let us jump to the present and the COVID-19 crisis. The Supreme Court, mostly composed of judges appointed during the 16 years of socialist rule, decided that the guidance, administration and control of how to tackle the pandemic was the responsibility of the state governors. One may argue that was correct, since public health is prerogative of states and municipalities, but, in practice, that made the federal government like the “Queen of England” whose only duty was to print money. Nonetheless, Bolsonaro made his opinion heard loud and clear, that, based on the Brazilian reality, where most of the population eat based on the money they make every day, the best approach would be a vertical lockdown of those in higher-risk groups (the elderly and those with health conditions); otherwise, the social consequences of the lockdown would be huge.

Some states, particularly those governed by the socialist Labour Party (PT) and the state of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, whose governors are pre-candidates for the 2022 presidential election, opted to force a full lockdown upon the population, calling it “social distancing.” Here comes the newspeak: everything was closed, and everyone told to stay at home, but it was not a lockdown. God knows what a lockdown would mean to them. At the same time, they began to bombard Bolsonaro with all sort of accusations, such as that he was anti-science, and the mainstream Brazilian media (that includes the newly created CNN-Brazil) blamed Bolsonaro for everything, even though his power had been removed by the Supreme Court.

Probably, the most outrageous of all was the way state and municipal police forces began to treat citizens who allegedly “disrespected social distancing” even if they were alone in an empty space. The brutality of a police-state became visible in videos that flooded social media (but not mainstream media) where working men, the elderly and women, even in bikinis, were brutally handcuffed and arrested. Meanwhile, governors are releasing criminals from jail, even drug-trafficking leaders and unrepentant rapists.

During this time of crisis, Justice Minister Moro resigned, claiming Bolsonaro was trying to interfere with the work of the Federal Police, even attempting to change some of its directors. Vague as this accusation was, as it is a constitutional prerogative of the president to appoint people to senior positions, the Establishment began to ask for Bolsonaro’s impeachment. Moro claimed that the content discussed during the last ministerial meeting would prove that. the Supreme Court opened an investigation based on Moro’s accusation, and requested the tape of the meeting.

Continue reading

Almost Heaven


(Click to enlarge)

Most Americans over the age of 40 know how the state of West Virginia was formed. For the youngsters, or for readers in the Far Abroad, this is what happened:

During the Recent Unpleasantness (a.k.a. the American Civil War or the War Between the States) counties in the western part of Virginia voted to secede from Virginia after Virginia seceded from the Union. They then established themselves as the separate and independent State of West Virginia.

Those good folks out in Them Thar Hills are close kin to the rural residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, especially in the counties hard on the border with West Virginia — Buchanan, Tazewell, Bland, Giles, Craig, Alleghany, Bath, Augusta, Rockbridge, etc.

Now West Virginia is offering an opportunity to the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties and localities here in Virginia: If we want to secede from the tyrannical government in Richmond, we are invited to apply for admission to the State of West Virginia.

The counties up there along the Blue Ridge may well jump at the opportunity, and some of the ones down here in the Piedmont could follow suit. I don’t know if the same sentiment would extend all the way east to Tidewater and the Eastern Shore, but it could be that all the declared sanctuary counties and cities would want to stick together. If they do, most of the Commonwealth of Virginia will abscond to West Virginia, leaving only Northern Virginia (the Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy) and a few progressive islands such as Richmond and Albemarle County (with its embedded Li’l Kumquat, Charlottesville). In other words, the original Commonwealth of Virginia will have been almost completely reconstituted.

Now, that’s one of history’s little ironies.

Below is the full text (also archived here) of the bill introduced yesterday in the West Virginia House of Delegates:

House Concurrent Resolution 8

(By Delegates Howell, Summers, Shott, Householder, C. Martin, Hott, Graves, Cadle, Barnhart, J. Jeffries, Maynard, Phillips, Foster, Hamrick, Steele, D. Jeffries, Wilson, Waxman, Bartlett, Paynter and Linville)

[Introduced January 14, 2020]

Providing for an election to be had, pending approval of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a majority of qualified citizens voting upon the proposition prior to August 1, 2020, for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia as constituent counties, under the provisions of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution of West Virginia

Continue reading

2nd Amendment Showdown in Virginia

Colion Noir is a lawyer and 2nd Amendment activist in Texas. In the following Fox News clip he discusses the plans to ban and/or register certain guns in Virginia, and the resulting pushback that has prompted 90 or more localities to vote themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries.

Connecticut and New York passed similar laws a few years ago, but never attempted any systematic enforcement against citizens who refused to comply. Virginia Governor Ralph “Coonman” Northam, however, has staked his political mojo on enforcing such laws after they are passed. If he doesn’t declare martial law and call up the National Guard, he’ll have to send in the state police to apprehend citizens who refuse to comply, since most sheriffs have vowed not to cooperate.

This will not end well.

The big question, though, is how many Democrat delegates will actually vote to pass these bills. Many of the newly-elected legislators represent districts whose localities have now turned themselves into 2nd Amendment sanctuaries. If you represented such a district, what would you do if you hoped to be re-elected?

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

Trouble With a Capital “T”

In the following video a young man named Ben Joseph Woods gives testimony before the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors about the current political crisis in Virginia and the rest of the USA. Maj. Woods is a military veteran and an officer in the Marine Reserves, in addition to his current service as a law enforcement officer. He addresses not just the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary issue, but also the larger political crisis that has the country so deeply polarized.

This video was recorded in early December. It’s worth noting that since that time the number of sanctuary counties has grown to about 80 — that is, 90% of the counties in Virginia:

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

Southern-Fried Boogaloo

I was going through a crate of old memorabilia today and came across a box that once held “Dixie Pops”. Apparently they’re some sort of cheesy firework (“WARNING: DO NOT PUT IN MOUTH”), made in China in 1986. The box is empty now, so I can’t tell you exactly what it once contained.

What I want to know is whether the word “pops” is a verb. Because it seems to me that Dixie is going to start poppin’ pretty soon — at least here in the Old Dominion, if Governor Coonman has his druthers. A little poppin’ here and there, both north and south of the James River.

A fun trick! But see side panels for cautions.

Defend Liberty!

Inspired by yesterday’s post about 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries, Michael Copeland sends his thoughts on liberty.


The Triumphal Arch” by John Davidson
(Creative Commons: CC BY-SA 2.0)

Defend Liberty!

by Michael Copeland

The breakaway colonists of New England, Virginia, Pennsylvania and other colonies were, as Pat Condell rightly points out, not Americans, but Englishmen standing up for their English rights. They defended those “ancient liberties” with their lives, winning the War of Independence and establishing their own new nation with its famous Constitution.

What is less well-known is that they had their admirers in England. One of these, Sir Thomas Gascoigne, at Parlington, near Leeds in Yorkshire, erected a commemorative arch with the inscription:

LIBERTY IN N. AMERICA TRIUMPHANT MDCCLXXXIII

Liberty is not free, nor is it self-upholding. It is hard-won by a struggle, and kept in place by vigilance and effort. It needs men and women of principle and action to sustain it.

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke

Defend liberty!

For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.

Sic Semper Tyrannis


(Click to enlarge [Hat tip: WRSA])

I’m in a cheerful mood this evening after reading the local news. As you can see from the map above, the deplorable rural hinterlands of Virginia, where citizens cling bitterly to guns and religion, have voted overwhelmingly to declare their localities 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.

I don’t know Pulaski and Montgomery well enough to venture an opinion, but I expect Franklin, Prince Edward, Lunenberg, and Amelia to follow suit when their boards of supervisors vote.

Virginia turned blue last month because the banlieues of The Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy (Northern Virginia) — and to a lesser extent Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Richmond — are packed to the gills with millions of Yankees and foreigners. But it’s different out here in the boonies, where the memory of our ancient liberties is still fresh. After all, it was Virginia’s most famous son, Thomas Jefferson, who said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

The local papers are the best place to keep up with news on such topics. As you know, I’ve been reading The Farmville Herald online lately. I’ve maxed out the number of articles I can access without paying for a subscription, so I can’t give you all the interesting links. However, here’s a snip from an article by the redoubtable Alexa Massey about the vote by the Cumberland County Board of Supervisors a couple of days ago:

Sanctuary resolution adopted

by Alexa Massey

At the Dec. 10 Cumberland County Board of Supervisors meeting the board voted unanimously, 3-0, to pass a resolution declaring Cumberland County to be a Second Amendment sanctuary. District Two Supervisor Lloyd Banks was not present at the meeting and therefore did not participate in the vote.

The full resolution is as follows:

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” and,

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), affirmed that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, and

[…]

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County Virginia:

That the Cumberland Board of Supervisors hereby declares Cumberland County, Virginia, as a “Second Amendment sanctuary,” and

That the Cumberland Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its intent to uphold the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Cumberland County, Virginia, and

That the Cumberland Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its intent that public funds of the county not be used to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Cumberland County, or to aid federal or state agencies in the restriction of said rights, and

That the Cumberland Board of Supervisors hereby declares its intent to oppose any infringement on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms using such legal means as may be expedient, including, without limitation, court action.

That really warms my heart. And the description of the response by the crowd attending the meeting provides additional inspiration:

Continue reading

Rural Virginians Resist the Assault Against Their 2nd Amendment Rights

The Democrats won control of both houses in the legislature after last month’s state elections here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth already has a Democrat governor, Ralph “Coonman” Northam, whose blackface caper was discussed here at great length (and hilarity) last winter. The lieutenant governor had a #MeToo issue, and the Attorney General had his own blackface moment. If Coonman had been forced to resign, the other two would have toppled like dominos, which would have left the Speaker of the House of Delegates as next in line to be governor. At the time of all the politically correct brouhaha last February, the Speaker was a Republican, so forcing anyone to resign became an impossibility. If the top men had been Republicans, or if there had been a Democrat available to fill in, those boys would have been out on their aspidistras quicker than you could say shoo-fly pie.

So… After that stroll down memory lane, we now return to the Brave New World of December 2019. All important statewide elected offices are currently held by Democrats. I suppose they could oust ol’ Coonman now, but it appears that all has been forgiven, and the race-baiters are willing to let bygones be bygones.

Our new masters in Richmond are flexing their legislative muscles, and have proposed a law that would designate tactical training in firearms as an “unlawful paramilitary activity”. Depending on how one reads the proposed law (and the level of one’s paranoia), it could be construed to prohibit a father from instructing his children in the proper use of their guns.

People out here in the hinterlands of the Commonwealth don’t always pay a lot of attention to the goings-on in the State Capitol, but this new monkey business has raised some hackles. It has afforded me great pleasure to read about the county sheriffs who have publicly announced that they will not enforce any new laws that infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. These officers of the law believe (correctly) that to do so would be a violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And a number of rural counties have jumped on the bandwagon and declared themselves 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Counties.

The latest county to join the trend (or at least discuss joining it) is Cumberland County. Cumberland is just to the northeast of Farmville, whose immigrant detention center was featured here last week. The Farmville Herald covered the Cumberland proposal today. I’ve been enjoying the Herald lately (local newspapers are the best news sources), and haven’t yet exhausted the allotted number of articles that I can read for free online, so I am able to offer some excerpts here.

One thing to be noted about this article is that the Cumberland Board of Supervisors moved their upcoming meeting to a school auditorium, anticipating the attendance of a large number of concerned citizens:

2nd Amendment sanctuary on agenda

By Alexa Massey
December 7, 2019

The location of the Dec. 10 Cumberland County Board of Supervisors meeting has been moved to the Cumberland Elementary School located at 60 School Road. According to County Administrator Don Unmussig, the location change is due to the anticipated increase in citizen participation at the meeting due to a resolution on the agenda declaring Cumberland County as a Second Amendment sanctuary. The board meeting will still occur at 7 p.m. as planned.

A Second Amendment sanctuary resolution, if adopted by a county, means that the county will not expend resources to enforce certain gun control measures perceived as violative of the Second Amendment.

The decision to vote on the resolution comes after many Virginia counties have passed similar resolutions from concern that a new Democratic majority in the General Assembly could put the Second Amendment rights of gun supporters in jeopardy.

Following the Nov. 5 state election, Gov. Ralph Northam discussed plans to pass stricter gun laws in the commonwealth including universal background checks.

“I will introduce those again in January, and I’m convinced, with the majority now in the House and the Senate, they will become law, and because of that Virginia will be safer,” said Northam.

Self Defence: Where Do You Stand?

The following essay by Michael Copeland was originally published at LibertyGB in 2013.

Self Defence: Where Do You Stand?

by Michael Copeland

This is no video game. You are in a café in the USA. Other customers are present. Suddenly two men enter with guns. They make clear their intent to rob everyone. It is a nightmare: an armed robbery for real, and you are in it. This is no video game.

Your heart sinks as you quickly think what cash and valuables you have with you, and the first victim begins to produce his ready wealth. Suddenly a shot rings out, then another. One of the customers, a retired ex-serviceman, has a pistol: coolly and calmly he has dropped down on one knee and is shooting at the robbers. Shocked, wounded, and in total disarray, they flee empty-handed, crashing through the door and slipping to the ground in their haste. The shooter sends further shots after them. This is no video game. It is all over quite quickly. Shaken, you try to pull yourself together and assure yourself that you are unharmed.

“Ooh, it was just like a Hollywood movie!” is frequently the first reaction of an eyewitness. We are all so used to seeing things on screen that for many people this is the standard by which experiences are measured. Films, though, are make-believe, and we are comfortable enjoying their fictional world. Videos and broadcasts can be switched off: we are still in command. When an armed robbery happens before your eyes and you are one of its intended victims you cannot switch off: it is not a fiction, and you are not in control. You have to rely on your own inner resources.

This incident was, indeed, no video game: it happened in an Internet cafe in America, and was captured on CCTV. Though the open carrying of a gun is only permitted in certain states, American law provides for “Concealed Carry Permits” (CCPs). The law entirely backs up that particular citizen’s self-defence: he committed no crime. A serious robbery was defeated. The robbers in that incident were later traced and apprehended.

Here is a proven observation: the individual’s self-defence is also the defence of the law-abiding community. Zones where Concealed Carry Permits are in use have a lower crime rate: criminals know they might well encounter armed defence. As Ann Coulter explains, this is borne out by “all the actual evidence, mountains of it, in peer-reviewed studies by highly respected economists and criminologists and endlessly retested”.

Here is a second observation: criminals, by definition, do not observe gun control laws or restrictions. However careful and strict the laws may be, criminals will obtain firearms. An inescapable consequence of gun control laws, therefore, is to render the law-abiding population defenceless.

Continue reading

Banning the Cannonballs

I frequently read prescriptive assertions that begin with the words “We should” or “We need to”. Since I generally hang out among fellow Deplorables, such sentences usually conclude with an action based on a right-wing policy position — “close the borders”, “deport all the Muslims”, “ban mosques”, “hang the globalists”, etc., etc.

I always ponder what the word “we” might refer to in such statements. Does it mean “Myself, my brother, my uncle, and a few of my friends”? “The congregation of my church”? “The United States Congress”? “The UN”? “The Provisional Tribunal of Justice established after the revolution finally takes place”?

I’ve written in the past about this mysterious “we” that needs or ought to do certain things that never actually get done. “We” need to do these things, but somehow “we” never do. Why is that?

The Progressive “we” is another matter. If you’re on the Left, one of the most important things “we” need to do is to institute arms control of one form or another. Whether it’s nuclear weapons, standing armies, or guns in the hands of private citizens, “we” need to get rid of them, to ensure that peace will reign. Just imagine… it’s easy if you try.

The most cherished anthem of arms control in the Progressive Liturgy is Bob Dylan’s song “Blowin’ in the Wind”, which contains these lines:

Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they’re forever banned?

You can tell it’s a hip song, because he drops the “g” from all his participles and reduces “and” to “’n’”.

I was in junior high school when I first heard it. Not Bob Dylan’s version, mind you — it would be several years before I heard the Bard of Greenwich Village sing one of his own songs — but the smash hit by Peter, Paul and Mary. Even back then, when I was a pencil-necked teenage geek, I understood that the sentiment in the song didn’t make any sense.

It was irrational, and ultimately meaningless. Nowadays I would call it “virtue-signalling”, but in 1963 it was just hip and cool and high-minded.

Let’s think about banning cannon balls. How would “we” do it?

“We” would have to include national governments in the process, so major military powers would be called on to negotiate a treaty. If one posits the existence of the United Nations, then it would have to be involved. After lengthy multilateral discussions, the Cannon Control Treaty would finally be signed by all parties and come into force. From then on, cannon balls would be forever banned.

Unfortunately, some years later the Central Asian nation of Ollistan secretly violates the terms of the treaty: its armament factories begin building caissons and casting barrels and balls to make cannons. When the intelligence services of major cannon-free nations learn about the violation, they’re in a quandary. How can they stop Ollistan’s cannons, when they have no cannons themselves? The only thing that could bring the violator to heel would be a bigger cannon.

This is where the UN comes in. If it doesn’t already exist, the cannon-free nations will have to sign a new treaty bringing it into existence. It will be granted the privilege of maintaining a large enough force of cannons so that any treaty-violators will be subdued before a single cannon ball can fly (other than a UN cannon ball, of course). A brand new state-of-the-art Supersized Nuclear Cannon is the preferred weapon in the UN’s new arsenal. It can stop any uppity cannon-making country in its tracks.

Take that, Ollistan! Problem solved.

The UN now has a vast stockpile of cannons that must be kept ready in case another violator appears. What to do with them in the meantime? It seems a shame to waste all that cannon-power.

Well, the nation of Bucolia has just elected a populist president who refuses to implement the UN’s mandated wetlands policy. Fortunately, his deplorable country has no cannons, so it’s a simple matter to reduce its capital city to a smoking crater. Which then becomes a wetland after the next monsoon.

Meanwhile, the nation of Orwellia has declined to admit its quota of UN-sponsored refugees. Just roll out Big Bertha, and all that shiny new border fencing is reduced to a mass of shattered concrete and twisted steel, allowing the puir wee migrant bairns unimpeded entry into the country.

Yes, those special UN cannons really come in handy for maintaining order and implementing public policy in a cannon-free world.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

When I started this essay I didn’t intend to write a fable, but then I kind of wandered off track. So now I’ll return to it.

My point is that any prescriptive policy statement carries an implicit threat of coercive force to ensure its implementation. If “we” decide to prohibit, require, ban, mandate, or proscribe, the implication is that “we” will have the firepower to enforce compliance. If citizens are disinclined to do what’s required of them, or want to enjoy what is prohibited, then a massive state apparatus of coercion may become necessary, up to and including uniformed police, secret police, national police, security police, an army, a navy, an air force, electronic surveillance, drones, and satellite tracking systems. Oh, and also lots of cannons.

The above description applies to any mandates or prohibitions, regardless of ideology. Whether “we” demand conservative or progressive behavior by citizens, the enforcement of “our” demands implies a swollen, intrusive state. No matter what “we” want to impose on others, the less people want to do it, the more jackbooted thugs will be required to make them.

I’ll give you an example from the deplorable end of the spectrum. Suppose “we” decided to vet potential immigrants for their level of Islamic ideology, to determine whether they were dangerous to national security. Can you imagine the size of the federal agency that would have to be created to do the job? A veritable behemoth of bureaucracy, complete with civil service regulations, mandated procedures, record-keeping requirements, diversity officers, ombudsmen, and whistle-blower protections. It would grow bigger every year, and even so, 98.6% of all Muslim applicants would be admitted, because… Human Rights.

And I almost forgot: just as with all other federal agencies, a large proportion of its employees would carry firearms on the job.

On the other side of the political fence, if “we” ban assault weapons, “our” agents have to possess even more powerful weapons to take them away from people.

Or suppose a state government were to implement a law prohibiting any restrictions on the possession of firearms (fat chance!). Then suppose a locality within that state passes a law restricting the use of certain weapons. How would the state enforce its regulation, except through the use of superior firepower?

It seems an impossible idyll now, but the state used to be smaller and less powerful, at least here in the USA. Is there any way to reclaim that earlier environment?

Obviously, a government mandate is not the preferred method, or “we” would have to roll out the cannons to make sure it happens.

What conditions would be necessary for general liberty to re-established among a free people?

That’s a big topic. With luck, I’ll be able to return to it in a later essay.

Forget the Oscars. Forget the Super Bowl. School Shootings are the Trending Public Spectacle.

In the blurb for last Friday’s news feed, I composed a flip introduction to the reports about the murderous school shooting in Texas committed by a kid named Dimitrios Pagourtzis, which had happened earlier that day: “Today’s school shooting was held in Santa Fe, Texas.”

I’d used the same formula for introducing school shootings once or twice in the past. This time, however, a reader took exception to my ghoulish sarcasm, and emailed me with his reproach:

I’ve been a long time reader of your site, and I agree with the vast majority of your viewpoint. While I KNOW that no disrespect was intended, the comment hurts.

I wrote him back with this reply:

Yes, well, it’s a sardonic, sarcastic way of presenting it (which I’ve been using for a while), and it’s meant to hurt. It’s intended to remind the reader what a media circus school shootings have become. The lavish media attention and feting of the victims’ families helps GUARANTEE that there will be more — and worse — shootings in the future.

THAT’S what my sarcasm is about.

The media frenzy that accompanies school shootings these days is driven by a couple of cultural imperatives.

The first is the hoary old newspaper adage: “If it bleeds, it leads.” That was true when Caveman Og chiseled the first edition of the Neanderthal Times. It was true when everyone read at least two newspapers every day, one in the morning and one in the evening. And it’s true now, when we all have access to fourteen gazillion cable channels. The story with the most slaughter and gore is the one that grabs the most viewers.

And this is especially the case when children are the ones who are bleeding. Och, the puir wee bairns! Whether it’s the victims of terrorist violence in Chechnya, or dead baby porn on a beach in Anatolia, or high school students shot up in art class — stories about children as victims of violence are fascinating to the general public.

The second reason that school shootings cause such moist eyes in the media is their major subtext: gun control. Democrat politicians wait a decorous period of time — in Joe Biden’s case, at least two or three hours — and then their litany begins: Haven’t there been enough school shootings? It’s time to get serious about gun control!

This imperative has become even more urgent since the election of Donald Trump. A large chunk of the president’s support comes from Second Amendment enthusiasts. Even the most skeptical libertarian gun owner regards the president more favorably than he does any other major political leader. These are the people that put Mr. Trump over the top in his contest with Hillary. They are the primary wellspring of intractable American orneriness. And it is essential to the Deep State that they be quelled and subdued.

Which means they must be disarmed.

Continue reading