A Shot in the Dark…

One of the little secrets of American politics is that politicians don’t really care about the issues you care about.

Now they claim to care about the issues for money and votes but they don’t really care about the issues. This explains why they abandon these core issues when it becomes expedient.

George HW Bush was pro-abortion rights until he was VP on the Reagan ticket.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson was anti-abortion rights until he ran for The Democratic party presidential nomination. Pro Life Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Clinton found his Presidential Veto Pen when the so called “Partial Birth Abortion” ban hit the oval office desk.

Dick Cheney, who has known his daughter was gay for many years, magically supported same sex Marriage for his child when he was no longer running for elected office and our current president, Teleprompter Cicero, has gone from half-assedly fumbling about Civil unions to support for Gay marriage within his presidential term as political expediency permitted it.

Call me a cynic but I don’t think they genuinely care about these issues but they feign concern to manipulate their constituencies.

And there is no greater issue for faux outrage than the issue of guns.

As current Mythology goes in American politics concerning personal firearmsthe Democrats are in favor of greater restriction for private citizens while the Republicans are against more restrictions.

The greatest example of this farce was the 1994 so called “Assault Weapons” Ban passed by the Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

First an important distinction on terms and language as this is key to political and media manipulation. The Term “Assault Weapon” that was described did not mean fully automatic or machine guns, which have been HEAVILY REGULATED since the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934. An assault weapon was defined as:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following features:
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher mount (Grenades and other similar devices would fall under the NFA)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Detachable magazine.

As you can see none of the characteristics have anything to do with the most dangerous part of the gun: the projectile leaving the chamber, leaving the barrel and subsequently leaving a giant hole in a person.

The ban was mostly cosmetic dealing with weapons that were used in relatively few crimes. Unless you were planning on leading a bayonet charge while robbing a liquor store the ban would play no discernible difference in overall crime rates, nor make the guns less dangerous in general.

Ignore that. The point was to be grateful that Government had “done something” or to fear that the Government was coming to “take your guns.”

Bill Clinton and The Democrats had secured a huge victory. They banned weapons that would save children’s lives and make the streets safer or so they claimed.
But then they needed cash.

In the 1994 mid-term elections the Republicans crushed the Democrats sweeping themselves majorities in the house and senate. (Clinton privately admitted that it was the issue of the {Editor’s note: toothless and worthless} assault weapons ban that energized the conservative rural base.)

Facing a tough reelection campaign in 1996 where would the Anti-Gun Clinton democrats get cash?

If you answered Chinese Gun runners give yourself a gold star.

On Feb. 6, 1996 Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie, one of the famously unsavory characters in the Clintons epically illegal 1996 campaign fund raising bonanza, invited Beijing arms dealer Wang Jun to one of Clinton’s famous fund- raising coffees in the White House Map Room. Wang is the son of China’s former President Wang Zhen. He also ran Polytechnologies, an arms dealership owned by Poly Group, which was owned directly by China’s People’s Liberation Army. The next day Trie escorted Wang across 14th Street to the Commerce Department. There, he met with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Wang Jun was there probably to thank the commerce secretary in person. Secretary Brown probably assured him that the check had cleared.

According to a Scripps Howard report by Michael Hedges, which ran on the front page of the March 14, 1997 edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the Clinton administration commerce department granted Wang Jun’s Poly Technologies permits to import America with over 100,000 semi-automatic weapons (Primarily their AK-47 model) and millions of rounds of ammunition, less than 2 years after Clinton declared to have made America’s Children safer with the ban of assault weapons. (Note: All Polytechnolgies AK-47’s had been banned by President George HW Bush’s executive order in 1989, in response to a school shooting in Stockton California)

Later In 1996, Clinton also lobbied on behalf of COSCO in its unsuccessful efforts (Congress blocked the deal) to lease the Long Beach Naval Station, which would have in effect given the Chinese Navy – and an arms smuggler – a U.S.beachhead.

What scuttled the Clinton sponsored deal? The deal was suspended in the wake of a COSCO connected smuggling operation – which was short-circuited by federal agents just weeks after Wang Jun’s importation waivers were granted. On the night of March 18, 1996, undercover Customs and BATF agents accepted delivery of guns smuggled aboard the COSCO ship Empress Phoenix, as part of an ongoing sting operation dubbed “Dragon Fire.” The undercover agents had lured Polytechnologies into making a trial shipment of Chinese machine guns: a dry run set up to establish a working relationship before the Chinese granted access to their full inventory. Besides the smuggled guns, which they recommended for the California street gang market, the Chinese operatives explained that they were ready to sell everything from grenade launchers to shoulder fired Red Parakeet surface to air missiles, which they boasted could “take out a 747”. That night, federal agents secretly unpacked COSCO crates containing 2,000 Poly Technologies FULLY AUTOMATIC AK-47’s delivered from the hold of the Empress Phoenix. It was the largest seizure of fully operational automatic weapons in the history of U. S. law enforcement.

Even though Polytechnolgies was given a waiver for the importation of the 100,000 semi-automatic machine guns, they tried to sneak in 2000 fully automatic machine guns, before bringing in the really fun stuff. If you are wondering what the cost of the democratic party firesale selling out of their anti-gun family values core constituency it was a little over $600K USD (In their defense that was a lot of money in 1996).

Think of this next time a politician cries crocodile tears that guns got into the hands of some lunatic. Remember this the next time they talk of some “reasonable” gun control law that involves a waiting period greater than the time it takes to bribe a president and get his commerce department to waive importation and domestic bans on Thousands of weapons.

Now guns are tools. They can be used as part of turf wars by officially sanctioned drug syndicates, they can be used to commit mass genocide by governments, they can be used in the security of corrupt politicians and corporate insiders or they can be used in the protection of life and liberty of violent intruders. If guns didn’t have the utility associated with them the state wouldn’t find them so useful and in many cases claim a monopoly on their possession and use.

Does America have an issue with gun violence? Absolutely, both private and public use.

Cui bono?

Well certainly the state as it can claim more powers for its monopoly of violence as a paradoxical violence deterrent.

Arms manufacturers as there are increased sales and stock prices in response to the political rhetoric after an armed tragedy.

Grand standing politicians as they offer “solutions” to problems tangential to the core issues.

Non-profit organization on both sides which use fear to raise membership enrollment and replenish coffers.

Maybe it’s not really a problem at all but a big red opportunity for those who profit from tragedy. What’s a few dead bodies when there is so much money to be made?

You can always ask Wang Jun, he might know a thing or two about the politics involved in the gun issue…


2 thoughts on “A Shot in the Dark…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s