Virginia Tech Is the United States - Let's Tax the Bullets!

by Robert Wilkinson

Today's article isn't astrological, but important nontheless. In the midst of the turmoil created by a lone whackjob, I have again revisited something I've maintained for a long while. There are too many guns, and while the NRA insists that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," in the final analysis bullets kill people. In fact, bullets kill or seriously injure almost any living thing they hit; and yes, if you shoot a tree or a cactus often enough it will die, just like people and animals.

I don't know if we can ever get rid of guns, since too much of the global economy depends on the sale of weaponry. There are too many who have a vested interest in weapons for them to give up what they see is their means of livelihood, as misguided as I believe that means of livelihood is. But we can and should tax bullets to the degree it takes to bring down the number of times anyone can commit mass murder, or even individual murder.

This is strictly a matter of economics. Let the guns be bought and sold. However, we should make the price of bullets so astronomical that people will think twice before spraying a bunch of them at anyone. It may not stop the crazies among us, but they could only do damage to the extent they could afford say, twenty dollars a bullet.

Then instead of gang bangers spraying hundreds of bullets in drive by shootings, or lone crazies spraying a massive number of bullets into University classrooms, we would have maybe a few dozen bullets or even a hundred discharged, not all of which hit targets. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it brings down the odds of any number of thousands of bullets finding human targets. If the gunman at VT had to pay $2000 for a hundred bullets, he might not have been able to afford the damage he did.

Our governments have taken the same approach to cigarettes, and it really has brought down the number of smokers in our country, both teen and adult. Young people cannot afford to smoke nicotine delivery systems with the same cavalier attitude that existed when I was young. The statistics seem to prove the efficacy of this approach to bringing down teen smoking. If we can tax cigarettes, we can certainly tax bullets to the extent they put a burden on our public health system. Too many gunshot wounds in our emergency rooms across the country to debate that.

It is not a given that we should have semiautomatic weapons. The framers of the US Constitution never envisioned a reality when a disturbed adolescent could easily buy two semiautomatic handguns along with a lot of bullets. It took a while for the revolutionaries to load, shoot, and reload a weapon.

The ease and speed with which guns can be emptied of their load and reloaded is mindboggling, and dangerous for us all, given the instability of our times, the seeming inability of anyone in authority to do anything about getting the disturbed into counseling, and the extremely violent imagery of our mass media. These three vectors all add up to a disaster waiting for anyone with a grudge, a credit card, and an emotional imbalance serious enough to play out their drama on others.

Other countries in our world are astonished at the number of gun deaths in our nation. We are easily the most armed, most belligerent, and most gun-obsessed nation on Earth. Being armed, belligerent, and gun-obsessed is not a good formula for domestic peace and harmony. And for all the outpouring of sympathy and solemnity of the gun dealers who sold the kid his handguns and bullets, the karma of those deaths is squarely on their shoulders. If they didn't want direct responsibility for the thousands who now grieve, they should not have sold him the weaponry. Period.

Of course, perhaps we now are collectively experiencing just a little of the hell on Earth we've set loose in Iraq, where disasters like this happen each day. I just wonder why no one in the media is connecting the karmic dots. Infinite compassion for Virginia students and teachers (and the parents, mates, and children of the dead) is a good thing, but it is also a fact this happens every day in Iraq, thanks to our meddling, our overweening ambition to control oil, and the heartless politicians who mouth homilies while voting for more and more death.

That's the grim irony to this. We feel very badly when one of our own does this to our own, but turn a blind eye and cold heart when one of our own does it to people far away in the name of political policy. And that's unacceptable in a world where we are all in fact ONE. One life, one love, one Earth, one humanity. Let us affirm this is an awakening.

© Copyright 2007 Robert Wilkinson

Comments

[dcu]

"Bombs rip through Baghdad, killing 171"-article in NY Times today. It didn't even make the lead article. Our local Republican newspaper won't mention it at all. I thought the same thing. What happened at VT is a horrible tragedy. The fact is that it is a direct result of our culture of violence. Jon Stewart had a guest on last night from Iraq. They made the same point that this is a daily occurrence in Iraq. I don't see President and Mrs. Bush rushing over to Iraq to speak to the families over there who have lost loved ones. Who cares? They are just towel heads anyway.

In our lust for their oil we continue to demonize them in order to rationalize our own barbaric behavior. I have been reflecting again recently on how our nation continues to be guilty of the worst form of cultural ethnocentrism. Perhaps because as a nation we are a crab we can be so myopic and lethal in our perceived need to defend ourselves. While we are convinced that we are the victims the rest of the world can see the truth. We are clearly the victimizer. Just as the perpertator of domestic violence says to his victim-Look what you made me do-we say to the rest of the world-look what they made us do.

By all means let's tax the bullets. Let's also support candidates like Dennis Kucinek that understands the need to get past all this violence. Let's get in touch with the Divine Mother and the positive nurturing, caring side of our national Cancer identity. Saint John said "All we are saying is give peace a chance." But he also said "Instant Karma's gonna get you." And so it goes. Thank you Robert.
PS- Happy Trails Kurt Vonnegut. It was a great ride. Thanks for the memories.

[Carson]

Robert,

I can feel your words on a very deep level my friend and very happy you have created such a wonderful platform to reach thousands with your wisdom. May your energy and logic machete through all points of view generated from more separated vessels of consciousness (or ignorance in some cases) that try and perpetuate and justify the evil in this world. May your light spread through every mind on this planet.

Namaste,

Carson

[bluemoon]

In my neighborhood, a woman in her early twenties was killed by a man who broke into her house and stabbed her and her small son to death in 2006. Let's tax the knives until no one can own one! It's not people that kill people, it's knives!

There are millions of people in the world who consider astrology wrong. They would back a bill banning anyone from doing what you're doing right now. Before you eagerly back the removal of someone else's rights, consider the Karmic backlash.

[Anonymous]

Robert you are normally so wise, how can you be so stupid when it comes to guns? Do you not understand the threat of tyranny? By taxing bullets you're essentially saying, only the rich can own guns. And what is one of the defining characteristics of those who threaten the liberties of Americans today? That's right, they are all excessively wealthy. The 2nd Amendment exists for a VERY important reason. Please either put more thought into your political postings or leave them off this site. I very much enjoy your astrological articles. Don't make me dislike you. It is a fact that when gun ownership increases in a community, crime DECREASES! There is a reason for that and it only takes common sense to understand it.

On a sidenote. Taxing bullets wouldn't stop violence either. These mass shootings aren't as random as you might think either. You may want to read up on the connection between columbine and anti-depressents. I believe they are called seratonin uptake inhibitors.

[Anonymous]

To learn more about the connection between homicide and anti-depressants visit http://www.drugawareness.org

And read this book:
PROZAC: PANACEA OR PANDORA? "Our Serotonin Nightmare" on the New Class of SSRI Antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Lovan, Luvox, and more) AUTHOR: Ann Blake Tracy.
http://members.aol.com/atracyphd/

In short, these anti-depressants affect serotonin levels in the users brain in such away that they are essentially dreaming while they are awake!

[Robert]

Hi Carson - Thank you for your kind and well considered words. There is way too much ignorance (and chemical imbalances) in modern humanity to trust any of them with destructive tools. That said, there will always be those who will kill for the right to kill if they fear they might be killed. Ah, the joys of an Age in Transition breaking free of collective delusions based in fear!

Hi bluemoon - Anecdotal stories aside, I've known too many friends who died at the hands of others to approve of any of this. The fact that homicidal slashers exist says more about the luridly violent imagery of our times than the existence of knives. If you want, I will agree that we SHOULD tax ALL knives that are capable of killing people. See - I am equal opportunity. If someone wants a hunting knife, they should be documented and taxed accordingly. Butter knives at a different level, of course.

All snarky comparisons aside, I believe we need better means of evaluating those who can kill others. That jerk at VT was confined and then released when those supposedly "expert" in their assessments knew he was a bomb waiting to go off. Does that mean that I approve of universal testing and confinement of those who show tendencies? No. There is too much extreme rhetoric around weapons, which I suppose is to be expected by those who actually believe weapons are a solution to the pandemic violence of our stupid, retrograde society. An Einstein quote about being unable to solve problems using tools that created the problem to begin with comes to mind.

Some knives are more capable of killing than others. People with homicidal tendencies should not be allowed access to weapons. I've known a few crazies with knife fetishes, and they should not have been allowed to possess even one, much less their "collection." I consider any weapon to be abhorrant. Would I use one at my disposal if my life were being threatened? Probably. But never a gun. My attitude and disposition always selects least violent, least forceful means to deal with threats. Only enough to diffuse, never enough to kill. We can disable without killing. The means of killing must be muted. "Take the finger to spare the hand. Take the hand to spare the arm. Take the arm to spare the life." Least violence is always preferable to killing, regardless of however we seek to justify killing.

As for banning astrology, you're mixing mustard greens and pistachios. In astrology, you or anyone can come or go, accept or not, and there is no violence done to you or me in the exchange, or lack of one. Any contract requires the assent of both parties, so your analogy is not applicable. Or if you still think it is, then perhaps we should ban all belief systems that promote violence, which is more to the point of the discussion. Then we'd get to ban so-called "christianity," "islam," and "judaism," since they are demonstrably the most violent organized belief systems on Earth in practice, if not in theory. And no, I'm not into banning religion, as sane as that would be in the long run. Let each have their beliefs, as long as they do no harm to another. BTW - there are more on Earth who follow astrology than not, if we take a global perspective.

Hi anonymous - thanks for weighing in with an insult. Great way to kick off a dialogue. Tyranny? Like state sponsored corporatism, the model that we all live under? How will ownership of guns take away the delusions of an electorate who actually believe in and agree to government power regarding taxation, war, and nuclear waste disposal? Or greedy manipulations involving prescription drugs and AMA policies regarding disease and cures, or arguments that we must pollute our land, air, and water in the name of industry, or allowing violence to be done to people in the name of gun ownership?

We cannot pollute ourselves to prosperity, or believe that nuclear anything is going to lead anywhere but radioactive death to all life forms around it. Arguments that are pro-weaponry are illogic taken to an extreme if the point is to achieve less violence, not more. Reference the Einstein logic above.

Bullets can only destroy. They can never build, never give life, never promote joy or peace or health. That's not what bullets are for. Perhaps the threat of a greater threat is a useful deterrant for a short time, maybe not. Gandhi didn't think so, but many regard him and his philosophy as an irrelevancy in our "modern" world. However, he's the only one in many centuries who has demonstrated the power of peaceful non-cooperation with violence and achieved substantial results.

Mostly those with power in any form, large or small, tend to abuse it if they don't regard the wellbeing of others. Many psychological studies demonstrate that. Whether governments or individuals with guns, the pattern is that those who believe they have the power and the right to hurt others for any "justifiable reason" usually escalate hurtful behaviors if a lot of research is to be believed.

As for the rich owning guns, I'm for restricting ALL semiautomatic and automatic weapons, since they're only useful for spraying a lot of death-dealing devices we call bullets into things, many of which die. And it's surely an illusion to think that the 2nd Amendment will protect us from the Halliburtons and Neocons who want to promote an agenda of Fascist Chaotic Radicalism, the very philosophy Hitler used to keep his own violent shell game going for as long as it did.

As for what I post here, pleeeeze do NOT presume you can come here, insult me, and then tell me what to leave on or off this site. That's cryptofascism in a classic form. I dislike those who presume to tell me what I can and cannot say, since you are presuming to violate the right for me to have an opinion, something you would loathe were I to suggest it to you. You've now taken this from asserting your right to possess a means to hurt into my right to have an opinion.

FYI, I cannot MAKE you dislike me. That's the same reasoning of the whackjob at Virginia Tech. You will or won't, for whatever reasons your mind attaches to as a result of your astral conditioning, just like you do or don't like different races or types of ice cream. Also your statement of "fact" is not statistically correct regarding crime going up or down due to gun ownership. That's an old canard that just is not supported by facts, all anecdotal assertions aside. There are too many police department statistics that prove that argument false. As for certain prescription drugs and other government sanctioned factors creating massive imbalances in the brain chemistry in too many people, I agree completely. And given the instability of so many who are on drugs that are creating brain chemistry imbalances, I still must assert we need less means to creating wreckage, not more. Peace out.

[Kristina]

...high five!

[Anonymous]

Robert, I apologize for snapping however you need to understand that I come to this site for enlightenment and when I read something as offensive as this, I lose it. I shouldn't have implied that you are stupid but rest assured what you said is incredibly stupid. I take personal offense to suggestions by ANYBODY who think that Rights are up for debate, especially Americans. Thanks to our abysmal education system, few Americans today understand what Rights are. I am not even a gun owner but I understand the importance of the Right to own one. You even acknowledge the threat of our government and I'm sure you are aware of the police state that is growing everyday.

Homeland Security has control of every police department in the USA. And recently in a town near where I live, a journalist called 911 to report suspicious heavily armed men stalking his home. Well, these men intercepted the 911 call and said they will respond. Well, to keep the story short, the men NEVER identified themselves, they tackled the journalist and broke his arm and tasered (tasers are deadly weapons) him in front of his wife in children and are now prosecuting him for "resisting arrest".

It is clear our government has no respect for the law. How will your tax prevent those criminals in government from owning and using guns against us? I am not suggesting guns are the answer for peace. Guns are more like an insurance policy. A deterrent if you will, against those who don't respect one's Rights. Remember, laws only work against the law-abiding. If everyone owned a gun, the government would be a lot more hesitant to act aggressively against the people it is supposed to serve.

NEVER forget that Rights are NEVER up for debate.

As for my suggesting you not bring politics into this forum, I simply found this article out of place. I would never censor you no matter much I disagree. You have the Right to say whatever you want. Your Rights end where mine begin and vice versa. What I meant was, if I get disgusted enough with your intolerance of basic Human Rights, I will simply stop visiting your site. And yes, gun ownership IS a Right endowed by the Creator. Guns don't kill people, people do. It is common sense.

[chickie]

May we stop, pause and reflect? The good thing about reading all the postings on this blog this evening is that we know we are AWAKE, thanks to the goddess in us.

Has anyone any idea how we have arrived? Living in a place where 1. The entire planet of residents hate us. 2) We hate ourselves and 3)children seem to be the sacrificial lambs?

It's in my opinion that we have hit rock bottom. Si/No?

So I'm gonna ask you to take a chance.....just a rock n' roll chance to get to the bottom line of it all. I have my own personal journey that I was forced to take when I was one second before my own demise.

Don't know if Im allowed to post my website. I have nothing to sell, but to play it safe if your interested getting all the way down with this email me at [email protected] and I can direct you to my site.

Oh and by the way, about not getting political on this site, this is the time when we use this ammenities of technology for expressing the interconnectedness of us all!

Pray for us!

c

[Robert]

Hi anonymous - Thanks for the more civil tone. As for rights, I yield to no one when it comes to the right to live life in peace, free of ALL weaponry. That is the most basic human right, if we have rights at all. To me, it's not a given that we have the "right" to possess any size of firearm, from a handgun to a mortar, that could be used to hurt another, even inadvertently. Period. That's my standard of measurement. Of course, in a nod to our manufactured "right" given by men to men in the 2nd Amendment, then I would somewhat agree to everyone's right to own a musket, powder, and shot. Just not loaded anywhere near me, my loved ones, or yours for that matter.

Bullets are useless except to hurt, maim, or kill. The whole world is in the grip of a delusion that believes that violence in any form can yield good results in the long run. To indulge even for a moment in the belief that violence can lead to peace is a delusion, shared by many perhaps, but a delusion nonetheless.

This is not stupid. Thinking violence of any sort can cure violence is insane. Perhaps my belief is somewhat naive for our barbaric era, but there are problems all the guns in the world cannot solve, but WILL aggravate. They certainly can never help the situation, except only temporarily, and even then create such hatred, fear, and lingering animosity that whatever short term "good" we accomplish is irrelevant a few thousand hours down the road. Still, we must try something other than the spread of weaponry, or we shall see misery for as long as such things are allowed.

I am all for a person's right to live as they please, as long as it does not interfere in another's right to live in peace. My neighbor may own his gun; that does NOT give him the right to keep it loaded, lest it discharge through my wall and interrupt my life. We do NOT have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, we do NOT have the right to threaten the lives of the president or each other; we do not have the right to an honest vote, or clean water, or chemical free air (though we should). These are part of a shredding social contract that is killing the many to benefit the few. All the guns and bullets in the world will not solve these problems, but they will cause a whole lot of people grief when those guns and bullets kill people.

Guns will not solve the problems that are a plague on our societies. Much is the abuse of human freedom, much is benign neglect, much is overweening greed and desire for absolute wealth and power run amok. All is based to some degree in the delusion of fear. Again, we cannot beat barbarians with their level of violence, or we become them, even if for a righteous cause. Becoming the problem will not solve the problem.

I believe we all have the right to lives our lives as we will, as long as it does not hurt another, or interfere with our common right to health, wealth, love, or self-realization. If you try to fight a police state with guns, you will lose - Period. They have the biggest, most guns in the world, and have shown their willingness to use them to kill those of us who were students in the 60s and 70s. What makes you think they're any more merciful now? To fight that using guns is insane, and will only result in them having more power, not less.

I agree the Fascists have already taken absolute power, and have set up institutions to implement and perpetuate that power. I agree the US government is barbaric. Guns and bullets will not solve the problem. Restoring our right to an honest vote would. That's why Bradblog is one of my faves.

My bullet tax will not stop anything other than random whackjobs from using a credit card to buy as many bullets as they wish. As for "rights," we need some restrictions on our right to jam each other's gears. Our elected officials are not guaranteeing the public safety and well being. Would it be a bad thing if every cop and soldier and government official took a battery of psychological tests to prove their mental and emotional fitness for their given job? If they can do it to teachers, then surely we can insist on the same rigorous standards. And I surely think that those who want to buy bullets should have the most rigorous testing, since they hold the tools of mass destruction. No one with whackjob tendencies should be allowed to buy bullets.

We cannot stop the arms merchants, since they manufacture them. Good luck stopping that, as I noted earlier. Too many people buying and selling guns. Doing more of that will not diminish that. Too many people already own guns and it hasn't stopped the police state one iota. You're using means that won't accomplish the ends.

You may assert your opinion that this article is "out of place." I have had to deal with a lot of disapproval in my life from people that don't want to face uncomfortable realities as I experience them. For example, once upon a time people didn't like me speaking about African famine; other times people didn't like me talking about the stolen elections via voter disenfranchisement and electronic vote machine fraud. Over the years I've encountered many who are uncomfortable with me freely discussing issues around grieving the death of a loved one, in my case my daughter. Do you or anyone think those of us who grieve the deaths of our loved ones can possibly agree that sources of death and destruction are viable options in this world? Bullets kill people, and I'm against anyone dying one instant before they need to, whether by famine, bullets, or the legalized murder that is war.

I do NOT agree that my rights end where yours begin, and vise versa. That's BS. WE have rights in common as a function of the social contract. I do not have to agree to your beliefs, nor you to mine - but WE do not have the right to trespass on each other's peace, safety, property, and so forth. Nor does our government. These ARE basic human rights, and no one has the right to hurt another. Period.

I find it astonishing that you're asserting that the Creator endowed us with a "right" to possess the means to kill each other. God didn't manufacture guns; people manufactured guns. This is a human created "right," not a Divine one, such as life and liberty. It is incoherent to assert that a God of Love endowed us with the right to kill or hurt another. You're right in that a gun without bullets probably won't kill much of anyone, so guns don't kill people, bullets do. But if you must insist that people kill people, then we are speaking of what is supposed to be "original sin" which surely was not the intention of our Creator who we are told is a God of Love.

Bullets only facilitate people killing people. Are you arguing for a God who values bullets more than Life? Like it or not, we must "give peace a chance," given how long and often we've tried bullets and never achieved anything close to the ideal. If anything kills, it's bullets fired by people using guns. This could not be the intention of a God of Love which desire good for all its creatures. Aum.

[Robert]

Hi chickie - Yours posted before I got done with my response. You've raised some things I want to ponder before I answer. And thanks for weighing in.

[Helen]

Robert,

Have to get my two cents in. The merchant that sold that whack-job the gun. Well, he's sorry that he sold the gun. I have only one thing to say: "Buddy, you deal in death (whether, human or animal). What did you expect?"

There was a reason that the Alfred Noble, the inventor of dynamite,
created the Noble Peace Prize. Think about it.

Peace,

Helen

[Anonymous]

What about the millions of hobbyists? How is shooting a gun at a target hurting anyone?

Banning something arbitrarily because it "might" hurt someone is a terrible precident. Why is a gun always automatically a means to KILL someone? It is also a means to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY!

You have the Right to Life and Liberty and that means you have the Right to the means to protect your Life and Liberty.

Here is Lesson 101 in the Hierarchy of Legal Power in the USA:

God > American Citizen > State gov > Federal gov

If you are to deny an American a Right, you must first get their consent and then guarantee that the gov can't and won't exercise that respective privilege. Americans have all the Rights in America, government has a few enumerated privileges. And because of this hierarchy of power the government (State, Federal or otherwise) cannot legally do anything that an American Citizen can't do. My point is, your utopia will never happen unless you get the consent of Americans and consequently are willing to disarm all police and military of their weapons as well.

As long as the government has guns, I will fight for my Right to own a gun.

This is my final post.

[Reader]

"whackjob"

Harsh. Compassion begins at home.

[fatima roberto]

I agree with you Robert! One thousand percent.

[bluemoon]

It is strange to me that my species has lost the will to live. Partly, we have been taught that forces outside of us will take care of us. We live in a time when it is obvious that this is not true. Murderers go to schools because the people there are unarmed and have been taught not to fight back. When a murderer tells them to line up, they do so without a fight. That would have been unthinkable fifty years ago. The answer is concealed carry, but schools insist they don't need the help of individuals, authority is in control. Authority is the one who let the shooter go, even after he had threatened to kill two women. Authority didn't warn other students after the shooter had shot the first set. What more power shall we give to authority and beg them to protect us?

Will taxing knives or bullets or anything else solve the problem? Will banning them solve the problem? Well, some people got pissed off at the drunks who beat their wives, so the US taxed and then banned alcohol for quite a few years. Just didn't work out. There are still drunks to beat their wives and kill people with cars. Maybe we should just ban cars. Let's ban everything. Somebody might do something we don't like.

In the sevententh century, central planners decided that astrology was a bad thing. And they killed people to inforce their opinion. It can happen again.

It is disturbing that people are so quick to call for “more laws.” Who shall we aim our hatred at. Gun owners? Astrologers? Jews?

Perhaps I feel so strongly on this subject because my father was a pedophile and a practicing alcoholic. There were a lot of laws against the damage that he did. The laws didn't stop anything. There is evil in the world. And there always will be. I learned to protect myself. Most people do.

I respect your Robert for your gifts and talent. Nothing I say will change your mind; nothing you say will change my mind on this subject. There is a great anger inside of people, a deep and brooding anger that comes out of people, sometimes in inappropriate ways. This central question, who is going to protect us, how do we live, how to we fit together is at the heart of it. It is the very thing that the Finger of God is pointing to. But you knew that already.

[Robert]

Hi chickie - One of the reasons I posted on this subject is because it's one of those cosmic moments when more ARE reflecting and not lost in their indifference or concern over more personal matters. In a time of deep feelings and/or grief, this is an "intersection between fate and free will." That's why I don't confine my posts only to astrology, or metaphysical abstractions. Nothing abstract about guns and bullets for the parents, children, siblings, and mates of those who died.

As you and other regulars at this site know, that's a VERY personal subject I feel strongly about, since a long time ago I got to know what a young life cut short waaay too soon feels like up close and personal. That's why I'm against all forms of killing, as well as the means to facilitate that particular delusion of the human condition.

The only hope for humanity is if we do not default to escalating tensions, fear, hatred, anger, and ego-driven divisions. That is the wisdom of Gandhi's eternal message that we are ONE beyond our differences, and must find ways to de-escalate the animosities between members of the human race wherever these fear-based divisions show their ugly faces.

Any friend of this site can let others know of the good works they're trying to achieve via their website. You and others know I will never allow this site to be crassly exploited, since in the final analysis we all have our own cantina to operate. However, I will gladly bless any and all work that promotes our one-ness and our ability to become more aware of our humanness and divinity as I believe our true nature and higher potential is.

I also agree with what I perceive is implied in your questions that we have strayed into some strange ugly nastiness since the world we remember growing up in. As you know, I believe it is a collective irrationality that shows we've hit the hard edge of our evolution where we will "hang together or most assuredly hang separately" to quote one of the best of all time.

The 50s/60s may not all have been "Leave it to Beaver" (I was raised in the deep South, where people of color have a different take on our idealistic 50s imagery) but there was not the quantity or speed of so many extremely perjorative escalations of disputes into major divisions. As to that, it seems that the harsh rhetoric of the ReaganBush1 years has finally yielded its bitter fruit.

Hi Helen - I wholeheartedly agree. If you don't want the karma of death upon your shoulders, don't participate in or profit from that which creates death.

Hi anonymous - Shootingness begets opportunities to default in consciousness to shootingness. Often what begins in one arena begets unfortunate involvements in other arenas. It's wherever you put your head at is where you wind up. Cause and effect.

Also, you keep mistaking my position for one in which I would ban guns, or your right to own one. I have never specified this anywhere. I think that's impossible, so why try? I just want to make the implements of destruction a little more expensive to indulge in like we've done with cigarettes, and turn the money to help our collapsing public health care system overloaded in cities like mine (LA) because of too many bullets in the hands of angry adolescents.

There are many ways to protect ourselves and our loved ones that are more effective than guns. Again, I just want the ability to slow or stop those who default to killing. Maiming is better than killing. Disabling is better than maiming. De-escalating before the fact is better than disabling. If we cannot attain the ideal of non-violence, then we must try to attain a condition of least possible violence in any given moment.

And whether you read these words or not, it is important for me to correct an extreme error in your assertion. In my law classes, I learned the "Hierarchy of Legal Power in the USA" derives from one thing only: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Period. It is the absolute law of the land, and no other law can be in violation of it, whether federal, state, or local. Even your notion of state's rights derives directly from our CONSTITUTION. If there is any "sacred document" ourlining our rights, it's the Constitution.

Though the "Founding Fathers" did acknowledge on paper that they believed God has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, you will note it was WHITE MEN who asserted we had this right. It didn't come from our equivalent of Mt. Sinai. That's why the Constitution is not venerated more than our mis-translated Bible. If what you said were true, we'd be studying the Constitution on Sundays, not Constantine's manufactured political document. And even our Constitution does NOT endow us with total rights to do as we please. My paraphrase earlier about not being allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater is a direct interpretation of the limits of free speech as outlined by Supreme Oliver Wendell Holmes. No where are people guaranteed the right to do as they please, especially not in any society that purports that "god" gave them the rules and laws. Laws are created by groups of beings (usually men up to now) so they may have common understanding about the rights, duties, and limits of the individual in a society. If women had parity in our representative government, we'd have a whole new set of laws, while some of the old ones would definitely be interpreted differently.

Hi reader - I will reserve my compassion to those who lost a loved one to a very disturbed crazy person who in fact "whacked" every one of his victims. Harsh? It's become a damned harsh reality for the parents, spouses, children, and friends of the dead. Aum.

Hi fatima - Thanks. To paraphrase HH Dalai Lama, "There is one thing we can all agree on. Less suffering is better than more suffering." We must decrease the probability that psychological disturbances will yield physical violence to each other.

Hi bluemoon - Yes, it's saddening to me that so many have become thanatophiles in such a short time, and willing to play out that life-denying delusion on objects of their fear. I agree we've learned some other strange delusions of dependency, what we should and shouldn't care about, and so forth.

Murderers go to schools for the same reasons pedophiles go to children; the young are naive, usually weaker physically, and able to be persuaded through different means than say, longshoremen, computer programmers, or district attorneys. That said, we do NOT need guns in our schools, as that's insane. Our only choices are not submit to the slaughter like lambs OR have guns and start shooting. That's a false dichotomy. We have many other options. To name but one, I have seen martial arts experts disarm people from 20-30 feet away through a well-directed throw of things that do not kill.

"Concealed carry" will only yield more violence at some point. Martial arts would be far more effective with a lot less violence. As a former security chief for major events, I agree the campus police blew it bigtime. But who looks to the police for peaceful resolution of disputes, or even efficient apprehension of perps? That's another delusion our government has sold us. But more guns on campuses won't solve the problem. As I noted earlier, taxing the bullets is just my way of making violent insane rampages a little less quick and easy to pull off. It may not have stopped him, but it would have tipped off some kind of alarm if we had a system that noted an adolescent buying hundreds of bullets for semiautomatic pistolas.

FYI - Historically prohibition in this country did not result from "some people got pissed off at the drunks who beat their wives, so the US taxed and then banned alcohol for quite a few years." Don't know where you got your legislative history there, but it just wasn't that way. They didn't ban wife-beatings, they banned alcohol, due to social forces unrelated to wife beating, an abomination standing on its own that is much more serious than drunkenness, as distasteful and destructive as that can be.

Ban cars? Reductio ad absurdum. Look it up. Too extreme a view to be taken seriously. You're also painting too broad a brush on 17th century astrology, since it was very accepted by almost every royal court in the world including Muslim nations. Even when the august William Lilly was hauled before Parliament for predicting the plague and fire of London, he was acquited easily. There is NO record whatsoever of astrologers being persecuted at that time. Now "witches" (aka midwives, herbalists, etc.) WERE persecuted, mostly by superstitious violent white men.

I've not espoused any need for more laws. Just a tax on death dealing devices that seem to have NO other purpose than creating destruction (unlike your reference to banning cars - people don't buy cars to plow them into targets or bodies.) And I prefer not to aim hatred anywhere.

Sorry your father was cruel and heartless. That is your "Sacred Wound" and in the healing of that you will come to your Eternal Power to bring Unconditional Love out of the wreckage of ancient karmas I pray you will never go through again in this or any other life. We ALL have one or more of the "7 Sacred Wounds," so you're not in there alone. That's why it is said that one of the 3 refuges where we find healing and love is our community.

The world has not always been in the grip of such "evil," and there will be other times when what we know as "evil" will not exist, though there may be dualisms that are the source of polarization. I agree at present there is a great brooding anger inside of many, but also NOT in the hearts of many others who strive to find a greater Love and Wisdom. That's what this site's community is, I believe, at heart. Most people here come to learn, and sometimes heal minds and feelings with others who are for the most part gentle loving Souls, and aware of that CONSCIOUSLY. That's a very rare thang. My sincere condolences for your wound, and may you find your way to love, wisdom, intelligence, strength, and courage to stand for peace and love in the midst of the irrational fear and divisions.

[Nancy]

Calling someone a "wackjob" is an interesting choice of words. I imagine mentally ill people have to struggle all of the time with the stigma of their diagnosis,plus the disease itself.

[Robert]

Hi Nancy - Just a term for people who have no problem "whacking" people. Credit the Sopranos for making it better known in our culture. Of course the term has been around awhile to describe aberrant behavior from people twisted up inside, another term that probably fits.

Stigma? His potential for violent behavior was observed before the fact by friends, teachers, and "experts" in a clinical setting. Even when confined, "experts" deemed any "stigma" he may have had to be not potentially harmful to self or others. Hmmmm. Blown call, wouldn't you say? For the veneration and pay we give highly trained experts in our society, they should have seen this one coming a while ago, given his school papers and teacher observations on record before he snapped. His struggle with his stigma just created thousands if not millions of grieving people. Where were the gatekeepers to keep a psychopath from going ballistic?

[bluemoon]

You're not good with irony, are you, Robert?

So, we have rights, but it was a bunch of white guys who said so, so we don't have to really take all that seriously? And if we all had better health care we'd have no mass murders?

People want control over others, it is the shadow within us. As the I Ching tells us, a superior man improves himself, the inferior man simply blames others for his shortcomings.

The grandmother of the shooter said, "He got want he deserved." The root of evil is always the same.

I have found the love and belonging that I wanted. It is not found in the ego of human will.

[Sonja]

Regardig the right to bear arms, the gunman at VT was not trying to put food in the belly of his family. He was not trying to defend his loved ones. Those are the reasons behind the 2nd Amendment.

A mentally ill person is not a "whackjob". A person who goes on a murderous killing spree IS a whackjob whether they are mentally ill or not.

Let's take a breath here. Anyone who visits your site regularly, Robert, knows that you occasionally have a post which expresses your views on life other than astrology. Many of us are trying to make sense of the carnage and grief that was unleashed that day and Robert knew that we would come here to talk about it. If taxing bullets would prevent the carnage seen this week, then I am all for it.

Aquarius Papers is about how to achieve peace in our time using astrological tools. It always revolves around how to work with the astrological cards so that your Higher Self grows. Since guns do not fit into Soul growth (and getting rid of the kind of guns like those used at VT does), the post was perfectly in sync with current news.

[Jen]

I know it is unpopular to think about the shooter at Virginia Tech, but I still believe that compassion should be extended to the shooter as well as to his victims. I grew up in the same area of the country and the kind of pressure he was under was as evident thirty years ago as it is today. The Washington, D.C. area is a pressure cooker of racism, classism and zenophobia. The unfortunate thing is that no one took the appropriate steps to have this man hospitalized for his obvious mental illness. Perhaps because he was so "different" no one approached his family and took the responsibility for getting him the help he apparently needed for years. He could have been labelled gravely disabled or a danger to self/others for the neccessary 72 hour hold in a mental health unit. There were obvious signs of his alienation and mental deterioration. Instead of seeking help for him, he was ostracized. The result of this approach was accumulated rage and 33 deaths. Don't tax the bullets, that's a ridiculous idea. Instead there should be more money spent on having mental heath treatment and evaluations available to everyone. Virginia Tech failed by not giving the mental health services this man needed or by contacting his family to have him hospitalized. Two years before the shootings he wrote violent plays, but had difficulty even speaking in front of his English class. He was obviously struggling with rage. Remember Austin in 1966 and the shooter in the tower? The profile of this type of mass murderer has been known for 40 years. It is unfortunate that the signs of impending doom were ignored. He could have been treated.

[Robert]

Hi bluemoon - Depends. Sometimes more than others, sometimes not good at things that aren't irony. We should take our "rights" seriously. Reread what I've written. And if we had a better health care system maybe we wouldn't have psychopaths running around with guns and bullets, and if they were our overwhelmed ERs could deal with the epidemic of violence going on in our city streets.

I promise you I don't want control over others, since my own life is enough, thank yew verra much. I know a whole bunch more like me who don't have that particular shadow, having dealt with it definitively and killed that delusion at its root. Not much desire for control left when one's kid is dead. Not even much of a desire to live, but we learn, and do. When things are out of control forever, it humbles the ego and can lead to mental and emotional health if we don't avoid the bottom line. And I'm truly glad you found sanctuary beyond human ego limitations. That's the way to freedom.

Hi Sonja - Thanks for offering what you have. I am in fundamental agreement with everything you said. The life and death issues that confront us individually and collectively are the critical issues of our day. We have to be able to discuss them somewhere!

Hi Jen - Despite the pressure, he CHOSE his behavior. There's no ability for me to feel any empathy for him, as I am not a hate-filled youth, nor was I ever. Even when I was most out there, I never wanted to take a gun and point it at anyone, much less kill another sentient being. As for the shooter, if the people in charge couldn't do anything, what makes you think anyone else could? It was his problem, and when we have a problem, no one can change that problem except us, with whatever help we can get. And the tax on the bullets can pay for such testing as you propose. I do agree he needed treatment, and friends, and everything else we have to help us lead healthy lives. Still, he CHOSE to buy the guns, buy the bullets, load the chambers, and take it to the streets.

[miki]

It goes like this: If all guns were banned outright tomorrow, or even if we took the strict British/Swedish approach and only allowed them for hunting and in highly controlled shooting clubs, well, guns would slowly but surely disappear from the popular culture. As a fetish, as a gang weapon, as some sort of bogus macho self-defense argument, as an obvious and too-easy means to shocking schoolyard massacre, guns and the fear-based culture they create would, slowly but surely, fizzle and die.

It would not be instantaneous. It would not be easy. But slowly, as manufacturing largely ceased and gun shows shut down and fewer and fewer new firearms entered the channel and the black market slowly dried up from lack of decent supply, and as the upcoming generation simply wouldn't know a world where guns were prevalent and easy and stupid as paint, well, guns and the numb ultraviolence they inspire would disappear within a single generation, maybe two.

I know, it would ruin the all-American fun of shooting. I realize a beloved American hobby would have to be replaced by, well, roughly 10 thousand other options. I know it would infuriate countless collectors and responsible gun owners who merely appreciate the craftsmanship, the gun-maker's art, the simple joy of shooting deadly weapons into controlled targets and who have zero urge to kill anything, ever. I know.

But, well, so what? Giving up such a rather hollow, morally indefensible, outdated pleasure seems a tiny price to pay for the end result of a dramatically less violent America, a less suspicious, reactionary worldview, a nation not shot through with an undercurrent of fear and blood-drenched headlines and childish notions of angry, armed retaliation.

Hell, we've done it before, with all sorts of other harsh social practices and beliefs that, we finally realized, served the soul of our species not at all and actually caused much deep harm. Slavery. Hangings. The slaughter of Indians. Monarchical rule. Chamber pots. Flamethrowers. Smoking on airplanes. Lack of women's suffrage. Eugenics.

Really, has the time not come for guns to exit the wary American dream? Can we not even imagine it?

part of Mark Morfold's article

[Anonymous]

I am done with the gun debate. You clearly have more interest in treating symptoms instead of causes.

I am sorry to inform you that your law professor lied to you. First of all we have 51 Constitutions in the USA that all are relevant to their respective jurisdictions and NONE of them gave Americans any Rights. If you recall the precedent setting Declaration of Independence, it states that Right are inalienable and endowed by the Creator. You can tear up all 51 Constitutions and we will still have our God given Rights that we are born with. They are irrevokable and non-transferable. The Constitutions exist to put shackles on our governments and simply enumerate these Rights as a reminder to the governments.

Here is an excellent "Constitution Class". They unfortunately don't teach this stuff in school anymore.
http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

One last point. Whether you outright ban something or manipulate the market such you deny the tool to a specific demographic, that is wrong. In a Republic, all Citizens must be treated equally. Remember as well that America is a Union of Republics with a federal (read: auxiliary democracy in D.C.). We are NOT and never will be a single democratic nation.

The Greeks learned thousands of years ago that democracy doesn't work and our founding fathers knew this. In a republic, a majority can never vote away the Rights of the minority. Thank god, because the ignorant majority could have voted away our gun Rights. ;)

[jeanne]

Dear Robert,
I am a friend of Susan's from the Hamptons. I am the young and beautiful (and brilliant) friend. I was reading your blog/article about bullets, etc. It is fabulous. I was wondering if you have read Jonathan Swift's " A modest Proposal?" I thought that was the way you were going at the beginning. I am going to read the rest of the responses later. Hope lots of people read what you wrote.
Sincerely, Jeanne

[Robert]

Hi miki - I love his columns. Shootingness is an obsolete way of interacting with our phenomenal world, and to hold out the "right" to kill is insane when we are told Love is all there is. He's so right about things disappearing over time, and what were once "sacred rights" (like owning slaves) eventually is seen to be barbaric ways of living. "Child is father to the man." And of course, this whole thing was never about restricting guns in any way. It was about monitoring access to bullets which have no useful purpose except to kill or maim.

Hi anonymous - Again you deflect. This is not a gun debate. This post is about restricting access to bullets (as we do cigarettes) and making them slightly less accessible to psychopaths. These cause death and dismemberment. That IS the cause, whereas gun control would truly be merely a symptom.

As for your assertion about my law professors? Surely you jest. No one in the field of law disputes the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES is the supreme law of our land. Check out any number of attorneys, judges, law professors, and legal professionals who also know this fact. The 50 State Constitutions cannot deviate from what is established as law in the US Constitution. They may be relevant to their jurisdictions, but the US Constitution is the Royal Flush of Constitutions, trumping all other constitutions. All our "rights" are established in the Constitution, not the Declaration. The Declaration is not the founding document of the institution of our collective government. It postulated that under certain "Enlightenment" philosophies that the signers were moved to take revolutionary action, but it did not establish the laws of government. The Declaration may have set precedent, but it does not trump the Constitution as the rule of law. You are most certainly misinformed to assert that.

Again, you raise a "straw man" defense. No one here has asserted that we should ban guns or manipulate a market in a way that doesn't already exist. Are you arguing that children should be allowed to smoke? Should a 10 year old be allowed to buy whiskey or drive cars? Are you asserting that anyone, even psychopaths, should be allowed to purchase automatic machine guns? Bazookas? How about someone purchasing a dirty bomb? Are you arguing that none of these should be restricted?

As for "equality," sorry to inform you, but in this version of a "republic," NO ONE is treated equally. Pleeeeze. That's an unattainable abstraction that would be unworkable. I do not want psychopaths with the same access to weaponry that you and I have. To argue otherwise is anarchy where the rule of the jungle brute prevails, not a good formula for peaceful coexistence. We may not be democratic, mainly due to our having an electoral college. But it was settled long ago that we are one nation under a federal form of government, since if any of the states tried to secede again, they again would be reminded that they don't get to leave, kind of like the people who signed up for a year of reserve duty and are now trapped under government fiat in their second or third tour of duty, and who WILL go to jail and be publically humiliated if they resist.

As I said earlier, our dysfunctional government and their enforcement arms have more bigger better guns and will enforce their laws when they please, quite selectively. The way to peace on our Earth is not through everyone having more guns. You cannot end violence by shooting someone, even with the best of intentions and reasons.

Hi jeanne - Welcome to the site, and thanks for dropping by. Tell Susan I said hi! I did read "A Modest Proposal" years ago, thought about tailoring something along those lines, but it didn't seem good to satirize something that is such a touchy subject for so many people. Enjoy the responses. It's given me a chance to address some far-ranging concepts.

[bluemoon]

Robert, I am sorry for your loss. To lose a loved one is the greatest tragedy.

[Robert]

Hi bluemoon - Thanks for your condolences. We learn to live with our wounds the best we're able, even if some days are better than others. You're so right that losing a loved one is the greatest tragedy. That's why I had to stay focused on bringing Unconditional Love out of the wreckage. Anything else hurts too badly. And I've definitely had a bit of a hard time feeling what so many parents are now going through, including the parents of the shooter - they have the double burden of grieving the death of their son while also knowing he was an agent to kill so many other young ones. Their pain is unimaginable. Thanks for hanging in there.

[Anonymous]

Read it again:
http://www.house.gov/paul/constitution.html

No State surrendered 100% of it's sovereignty to the US federal government. And what do you think the civil war was about? Slavery?! Surely, YOU jest!

Back to lesson 101. The US Constitution is based on common law. We The People created the States and the States created the federal government by adopting the US Constitution but our Union already existed. The Constitution did not create the United States of America. It already existed under the Articles of Confederation. Or didn't they teach you that either in law school? All the Constitution did essentially was give Congress a federal territory and a few more privileges. But, because Congress has no respect for the Constitution anymore and the States let them walk all over them, 99% of what they do is illegal, and consequently most people think that they control everything. The federal government has very little control over the States. I am not saying this is how think work today, what I am telling you is this is in fact what the Law says if you care to study it rather than believe everything you're told. Remember, the Constitutions don't operate such that "everything is permitted except for XY&Z", it it the opposite. "nothing is permitted by the government except for these specific enumerated privileges." I assume you understand the difference between a Right and privlege.

Whether you limit access to guns or bullets is irrelevant. The effect is the same. You are suggesting making bullets only accessible to the extremely wealthy. You can't possibly believe that all extremely wealthy people are sane. America's crisis tells us otherwise.

The cause is NOT bullets. Do bullets alone go and kill people? NO they do not. Psycopaths use them to kill people. The cause is what makes a person a psycopath. So why restrict access for law abiding people so that they cannot protect themselves against psycopaths who are going to get guns and bullets regardless? The problem is what is causing psycopaths to USE guns to kill people. And I gave you the cause of the columbine situation (and chances are the virginia tech situation as well but we'll wait for the evidence on that) which was the use of Seritonin based Anti-Depressants. These drugs are KNOWN to cause homicidal bahavior! THIS IS THE CAUSE. NOT bullets. It is common sense. And if you still don't understand, then I don't think you ever will.

[Vicki Evans]

I would like to redirect this energy that has happened here to a higher level.

I would also like to go back to Robert's post and visualize and shine light, love, healing and compassion "for Virginia students and teachers (and the parents, mates, and children of the dead." Also to Irag and other places in the world where unfortunately this is happening on a daily basis.

The group meditation that has been going on in this site has been very powerful and the energy has been in such an incredible place.

This site has been a daily inpiration for me not only to read Robert's posts, but the enlightened and insightful comments that are directed at making a more peaceful and healthy world. I thank all you wonderful and positive beings out there.

Blessings be!
Peace,
Vicki

[Lori Flory]

Hi Robert,

On a different note, I am simply glad that my dad imparted love and compassion to me growing up with a love of nature, all living creatures which included anti guns and anti hunting.

Personally I choose to have nothing to do with guns or hunting.

Lori

[Lori Flory]

When the Columbine High School shootings happened in 1999, I was living 30 minutes away from the high school, at the time. I remember one of my trainers at work at the time ... her son's best friend was one of the boys who were killed that day.

The Bailey Colorado High School shooting earlier this year, was just 20 minutes up the mountain from Conifer CO where I used to live. I've driven by the high school many times. Bailey is normally a quiet small mountain town.

We are all interconnected and it touches us all, no matter where it occurs.

Lori