ONTD Political

by Garry Wills

(for which see Leviticus 18.21, 20.1-5). The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch. Ever since then, worship of Moloch has been the sign of a deeply degraded culture. Ancient Romans justified the destruction of Carthage by noting that children were sacrificed to Moloch there. Milton represented Moloch as the first pagan god who joined Satan’s war on humankind:

First Moloch, horrid king, besmear’d with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears,
Though for the noise of Drums and Timbrels loud
Their children’s cries unheard, that pass’d through fire
To his grim idol. (Paradise Lost 1.392-96)

Read again those lines, with recent images seared into our brains—“besmeared with blood” and “parents’ tears.” They give the real meaning of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning. That horror cannot be blamed just on one unhinged person. It was the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god. We guarantee that crazed man after crazed man will have a flood of killing power readily supplied him. We have to make that offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily—sometimes, as at Sandy Hook, by directly throwing them into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines, sometimes by blighting our children’s lives by the death of a parent, a schoolmate, a teacher, a protector. Sometimes this is done by mass killings (eight this year), sometimes by private offerings to the god (thousands this year).

The gun is not a mere tool, a bit of technology, a political issue, a point of debate. It is an object of reverence. Devotion to it precludes interruption with the sacrifices it entails. Like most gods, it does what it will, and cannot be questioned. Its acolytes think it is capable only of good things. It guarantees life and safety and freedom. It even guarantees law. Law grows from it. Then how can law question it?

Its power to do good is matched by its incapacity to do anything wrong. It cannot kill. Thwarting the god is what kills. If it seems to kill, that is only because the god’s bottomless appetite for death has not been adequately fed. The answer to problems caused by guns is more guns, millions of guns, guns everywhere, carried openly, carried secretly, in bars, in churches, in offices, in government buildings. Only the lack of guns can be a curse, not their beneficent omnipresence.

Adoration of Moloch permeates the country, imposing a hushed silence as he works his will. One cannot question his rites, even as the blood is gushing through the idol’s teeth. The White House spokesman invokes the silence of traditional in religious ceremony. “It is not the time” to question Moloch. No time is right for showing disrespect for Moloch.

The fact that the gun is a reverenced god can be seen in its manifold and apparently resistless powers. How do we worship it? Let us count the ways:

1. It has the power to destroy the reasoning process. It forbids making logical connections. We are required to deny that there is any connection between the fact that we have the greatest number of guns in private hands and the greatest number of deaths from them. Denial on this scale always comes from or is protected by religious fundamentalism. Thus do we deny global warming, or evolution, or biblical errancy. Reason is helpless before such abject faith.

2. It has the power to turn all our politicians as a class into invertebrate and mute attendants at the shrine. None dare suggest that Moloch can in any way be reined in without being denounced by the pope of this religion, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, as trying to destroy Moloch, to take away all guns. They whimper and say they never entertained such heresy. Many flourish their guns while campaigning, or boast that they have themselves hunted “vermin.” Better that the children die or their lives be blasted than that a politician should risk an election against the dread sentence of NRA excommunication.

3. It has the power to distort our constitutional thinking. It says that the right to “bear arms,” a military term, gives anyone, anywhere in our country, the power to mow down civilians with military weapons. Even the Supreme Court has been cowed, reversing its own long history of recognizing that the Second Amendment applied to militias. Now the court feels bound to guarantee that any every madman can indulge his “religion” of slaughter. Moloch brooks no dissent, even from the highest court in the land.

Though LaPierre is the pope of this religion, its most successful Peter the Hermit, preaching the crusade for Moloch, was Charlton Heston, a symbol of the Americanism of loving guns. I have often thought that we should raise a statue of Heston at each of the many sites of multiple murders around our land. We would soon have armies of statues, whole droves of Heston acolytes standing sentry at the shrines of Moloch dotting the landscape. Molochism is the one religion that can never be separated from the state. The state itself bows down to Moloch, and protects the sacrifices made to him. So let us celebrate the falling bodies and rising statues as a demonstration of our fealty, our bondage, to the great god Gun.

December 15, 2012, 5:25 p.m.


This is probably one of the most frighteningly accurate analogies ever for gun culture in the US.
angry_chick 19th-Dec-2012 05:32 am (UTC)
*bad liberal*

I don't have a problem with guns in and of themselves. I support gun-ownership, provided that it is RESPONSIBLE gun-ownership. I feel that things that should be included are mandatory background checks, psych evals and proof of a place to store them and lock them. I'm sure that there are things that I'm forgetting, but those are the main ones. Neither liberals nor conservatives find 'responsible gun ownership and legislation' this to be possible, and it because many opinions on this exist on extremes. Liberals want them banned, and conservatives want them fully unrestrained. I would like them regulated, and I say this as a gun owner.

The problem is that there has been no reasonable standards set forth on the types of guns that people can own. The guns that Adam Lanza used were legally purchased. That's terrifying. In all honesty, Assault Rifles? AR-15s and shit? Why did this shit even get put out to the public. The very people that have Assault Rifles are the very people that SHOULDN'T. You don't defend your home with an assault rifle. You can do it with a handgun. You don't hunt with an M16A1 - you can do it with a shotgun. Military Grade weapons should not be accessible to the public.

I know, there always exists the ease of getting guns illegally, (I can actually pick up an assault rifle quite easily - how people do forget about the black market) but even so, I feel like some sort of gun regulation would be a start.

Edited at 2012-12-19 05:40 am (UTC)
kagehikario 19th-Dec-2012 06:30 am (UTC)
Yes. Moderation, it is a thing!

The whole "black market" argument is one I hear a lot suggesting registration and controls are futile. This misses the point that the reason black market guns are so cheap and available is the huge glut of legal low-cost stock. You take that out of the equation, how many would-be killers will be able to scrounge 10k per Assalt rifle? How many troubled twenty-something otherwise straight-laced men will have connections to the few dealers able to get them a black market gun?
angry_chick 19th-Dec-2012 07:01 am (UTC)
Very true and that's really something to think about.

I would, however, think that the market would potentially adjust itself pricewise. I also do feel that if someone did want to do serious harm, they would resort to other means (me mainly hinting at bomb-making manuals and such).
rex_dart 19th-Dec-2012 06:59 am (UTC)
None of my liberal friends think that gun control means banning guns, or should mean banning guns. In fact, I've never spoken to a person who thought that all guns should just be banned. I'm sure there are some liberals out there who think that, but the general liberal position out there isn't gun bans, but gun control, whereas your assessment of the conservative position is accurate - they want basically no gun control whatsoever because laws are ~pointless~.
angry_chick 19th-Dec-2012 07:04 am (UTC)
That's probably a difference in the company that we keep then. Most of the liberals that I personally know want guns completely out of the hands of other people. I've even seen people on this very community commenting along the lines of "Why does anyone need a gun?" and other variants - not at all bothering to make any sort of distinction regarding assault rifles versus a 9MM. There was a post in here where I was actually asked that.

It mainly hit its peak around the time of the last big shooting out in Colorado, though. I've been too out of it to check every single entry on *this* particular incident.

Edited at 2012-12-19 07:05 am (UTC)
rex_dart 19th-Dec-2012 07:11 am (UTC)
tbh I spend a lot of time pointing out that people don't need guns because conservatives spend so much time pointing out absolutely absurd reasons that they think DO need guns (such as "if I were in that shopping mall I would have pulled out my concealed carry sidearm and saved everyone from the assault rifle-wielding maniac BANG BANG BANG!"). The anti-gun-control crowd has the power, so they set the tone for the debate. It's hard to argue the liberal point that guns need to be intelligently regulated and gun owners need to be held more responsible for their firearms in various ways under the law when the start of the discussion is inevitably "if you regulate guns MY WHOLE FAMILY WILL DIE IN A HOME INVASION, COMMIE!"

Most of the arguments I had this past weekend involved me asking people for statistics when they claimed that concealed carry (for example) saves lives and telling them that they had to counter my statistics pointing out that a gun in the home (for example) is more likely to kill a woman or child in the household than an armed aggressor. The argument RARELY reaches the point at which my own positions on firearm regulation (which have a lot in common with how Australia does it) even come up, because usually people are flipping their shit just having someone tell them that they are not Rambo and they are never going to get to righteously kill someone and be declared a hero for it.
redstar826 19th-Dec-2012 01:44 pm (UTC)
I wonder if some of this is based on location? I've never heard 'ban guns' from people where I live, but I also live in a part of the country where hunting is pretty popular
skellington1 19th-Dec-2012 08:24 pm (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. Neither I nor most liberals I talk to think guns should be outright banned. The idea that 'they're coming for our guns' is entirely fear-mongering by the right -- no one on the left is seriously trying to DO that!
mary_pickforded 19th-Dec-2012 08:52 am (UTC)
keestone 19th-Dec-2012 02:07 pm (UTC)
Mandatory safety training.

. . . and some way of detangling gun ownership from machismo culture, but I don't think that can be done with regulation. :(
crossfire 19th-Dec-2012 05:39 pm (UTC)
The weapon Lanza used (a Bushmaster M4, which is based on the AR-15 model and is for all intents and purposes an "assault rifle") was legally purchased, registered, and limited (by magazine capacity and fire rate) according to state and federal laws. It had been purchased long before the shooting...by his mother.

It's clear that the usual firearm regulation that happens in the US is pretty ineffective. We need to do better.

And I say that as a gun owner too.
celtic_thistle 19th-Dec-2012 06:05 pm (UTC)
You're not a bad liberal. I grew up around VERY strictly controlled guns (my dad is a retired cop) and I can shoot, but I ALSO think there needs to be far more oversight on gun ownership in general. You're right about assault rifles--there's no need for citizens to own them.
thenakedcat 19th-Dec-2012 07:35 pm (UTC)
If I may ask, how do you feel about closing the gunshow exception and requiring that all purchases be registered and come with a waiting period, or limiting the number of guns that can be purchased at one time?
angry_chick 19th-Dec-2012 08:30 pm (UTC)
I feel that this should be closed.

Guns should not be able to be purchased at gun shows. Gun Shows should ultimately be used as marketing tools or as forums to discuss issues regarding guns - akin to conventions. People can be registered and begin the process of gun ownership at these shows, and classes should be available, but purchasing guns at gun shows should be barred.
tinylegacies 19th-Dec-2012 07:39 pm (UTC)
I agree with you.

Though, according to my brother (who is much more knowledgeable about such things), the assault rifle owned by Mrs. Lanza is no longer legal to purchase HOWEVER folks who already owned them were "grandfathered" in so she had that rifle almost as long as/if not longer than, her son was alive.

However, IMO, the fact that guns *could* be obtained illegally doesn't mean much. It doesn't prevent us from having laws against possession/use of drugs. And the majority of these mass shootings are perpetrated with legally owned guns. Would those individuals have gone out of their way to obtain guns or would they have not happened? We'll never know but it's a question that needs to be addressed.
This page was loaded Apr 22nd 2018, 8:21 pm GMT.