Maureen Scott
A tale of (crimes in) two cities
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Maureen Scott
April 27, 2013

Crime #1

One young man, in a small suburban city, steals guns, goes crazy and shoots up a school, murdering a total of twenty young children and six adults. In the aftershock of that atrocity, the country is prompted by emotional Liberals and the Administration to enact regulations that prohibit, or further regulate gun ownership. They claim that is necessary because guns are bad, and they try to push their agenda and advance their goal by trotting out every tragic story of a family or person who was ever harmed by a person with a gun.

For them the gun is the daemon that wreaked chaos, havoc, and death, not the young man who made a conscious decision to go on a spree of massacre. A campaign is mounted; media attention is focused on the crusade to root out guns...instead of eradicating the root of the problem. Their far-from-viable solution is akin to giving a person an aspirin because he has pain from beating his head, rather than stopping him from banging it on the wall. The desire to do something stupid, or in this case, criminal, is still there; the "problem" is not solved.

They do not, instead, reflect on and work to stop the things in our society that prompted this, and other deranged individuals, to believe they had a right to retaliate against others to settle their grievances, whatever they were, in such a vicious manner. They do not accept that the violence in movies and video games has any effect on the psyche of any mass murderer and that seeing continual depictions of bullets flying in all directions, bodies being blown apart, or limbs being severed, (along with all the "realistic" views of blood and guts) has numbed the minds of viewers to the true pain, sufferings, horrors, and consequences of those actions, and has removed them from having a respect for life.

Yet, as everyone knows and understands, behavioral response to audio and visual suggestion is extensively utilized and is an integral part of our lives. We live in a world where advertising guides many of our decisions and ad agencies thrive by creating promotional campaigns for TV and print media in order to convince the American public to do or buy something, or vote for someone. The power of repeated suggestion, overt or subliminal, is well-known, documented, profitable, and practiced by everyone who wants their products sold, and their views adopted.

However, anti-gun enthusiasts will not accept that same power as being the prevailing dynamism behind crimes by people who are continually exposed to fictionalized violence on large or small screens, and who then act out what has been streamed into their consciousness through anesthetized conditioning in comfy theatre seats or at home in front of their televisions or computers.

What is most ironic is the clamor against guns from the entertainment crowd itself. These people, who, for the most part, make millions from glorifying carnage, or behaving in a wild, uncontrolled, immoral, and irrational manner, then hypocritically busy themselves stomping for gun control and feign being revolted by the very weapons they wield so skillfully in their movies in order to sell tickets. However, gun haters just cannot admit that the viciousness, bullying, and aggression that is rampant in America today is in direct proportion to the hostility and brutality children see every day portrayed by the actors whom they emulate and applaud.

These examples of misbehavior and the promotion of retaliation against others because of some perceived or real offense have played a major role in the lowering of standards for restrained self-control, discipline, and morality in our society. The film industry has fattened itself and continues to feed on sensationalized aggression. They, along with the greedy manufacturers of sadistic video games where users can become heroes capable of non-feeling, super human feats of force and viciousness, are the most guilty of providing encouragement and ideas for people with less than rational thinking abilities who want to duplicate the hostile MO's of fictional characters.

It is our society – which accepts this as entertainment and thrilling diversion, without regard to the damage it is doing to our children's minds – that should be controlled and restricted, not the weapons. But who among the gun denouncing crowd will ever admit that?

Crime #2

Two brothers decide to make bombs and explode them in a crowd in Boston. Three innocent bystanders at a marathon running event are killed; hundreds more are irreparably maimed, wounded and will suffer a lifetime of fear and pain. These brothers then hijack a car and shoot and murder a police officer. All of Boston is in a panic; the city literally shuts down. The FBI searches everywhere. People's homes are invaded by the police in a massive manhunt to ferret out the suspects. The country watches in disbelief and horror as these terrorists evade capture for several days until one is killed in a battle with police, while the second escapes, although wounded, and is finally caught and arrested. Everyone wonders: What could be the cause of such horrendous behavior?

While still hospitalized, the "perp" confesses to the police that they initiated this sadistic plot because of their ties to/belief in Islam, a segment of which promotes attacks on peaceful civilians in its goal to terrorize and take over the world. Their relatives speak out, claiming that the brothers must have been "radicalized" at some point, by some entity that exacted a power over them...because they had otherwise been "good boys." But now, these boys are men – and fully capable of making their own choices and decisions. It is also discovered that the FBI had been alerted to one brother's connection to "religious extremist activities" and has been being watched for a couple of years. And yet Left-wingers, the Liberal media, and this Administration downplay this possible relationship. They don't want to say it. It is not PC to mention that the murderers' plans grew out of their indoctrination by Islamic Extremists. It is not PC to even call them "Terrorists," even though the eldest has been listed on its Terrorist List.

Instead Liberals want to close their eyes to the truth and for it to be soft-peddled. They want Americans to be "compassionate" and not label these men for the murdering monsters that they really are. Certainly...it is wrong to call them names...names hurt. But, not as much as the blasts from bombs they used hurt others. However, that pain seems less important to the cry-babies who want to find reasons to excuse the brothers' actions and pacify the Islamic community rather than condemn them based on what they have been trained and prompted to do by members of the fanatical factions of a religion that seeks to destroy the so called "infidels" the world over.

These "bleeding hearts" live in a dream world of honey and dripping dew. They view things through blanket-wrapped emotions, and cover their eyes to the ugliness of reality. They are not terrible people, just very naive. Their greatest goal is for everyone to like them and believe that they are simply very caring and loving and feel that if we could just all "get along" and ignore the need to fight the evil forces that threaten this world, then we would achieve Camelot. Further, they insinuate that those who do not agree with them, and who stand up to protect against evilness and invasion must certainly not be caring individuals – and must assuredly not have hearts.

Via their un-objective Liberal media spokespersons they promote the opinion that it is our "American society" that is at fault for the actions of the two men (who clearly did have evil in their hearts, and clearly didn't view America as either caring or Camelot). American society to blame? These two hated us! Even though we provided them with a life of government welfare checks, educational opportunities, and freedoms beyond those of their own nation's capabilities. They never gave back anything to our country, or showed appreciation or love of the U.S., or volunteered to help others, or became productive members in an American culture. Instead they not only took our money, but also the lives of our citizens. And, as illogical as it seems, Liberals have the gall to claim that it is America that is at fault for their attack because of our good heart and power, influence, and status in the world.

Yep, their thinking is – if America is hurt or attacked, we deserve it! After all, we are the "bad guys" even though we do so much good for others! Obviously then, if we had not been so gregarious in the first place, if we had not provided the families of these murderers (one an unemployed "boxer," and the other college student who always had money in his pockets and smoked pot every day) with refuge and advantages and allowed them comforts in the U.S – if we had been "mean" and turned them away...we would not be suffering the results of their deranged, retaliatory acts.

Shame on us! We are a BAD country if we keep these people out, tighten our immigration policies, restrict colleges from admitting foreign nationals, don't give them shelter, jobs, etc. And we are BAD if we let them in and demonstrate our infinite ability and resources to assist persons from foreign lands, here or abroad, in a way that surpass any other country's abilities to take care of people in need. America can't win either way!

So in these two very different, devastating, and tragic crimes somehow, for one, Liberals manage to ignore the negative effects of a society that embraces those who teach and promote violence through movies and video games...and in the other, where we are attacked by violence loving terrorists, it is our American society and its richness, involvement, out-reaching and magnanimous spirit that is the reason we deserve to be punished by those who hate us.

It appears that American society only gets blamed as the culprit when enemies attack us even though we are only guilty of doing what's right – and not blamed for the wrongs that our own commit because of the greedy guiltiness of those who portray hostility as an admirable lifestyle.

© Maureen Scott

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Maureen Scott

P. Maureen Scott is an ardent American patriot who was born in Pittsburgh, PA, and retired to Richmond, VA, in 2000. Free from the nine-to-five grind of writing for employers and clients, she began writing political commentary to please herself and express her convictions... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Maureen Scott: Click here

More by this author