Response to Celebrity Gun Grabbers

by Jeremy Griffith
American Millennium Online
Jeremy Griffith, the creator of The American Millennium Online.

Jeremy Griffith, the creator of The American Millennium Online.

OK, so the above video is my response to the dopey celebrity gun grabbers in light of the recent events in Charleston. While we morn for the people who died and their families, we are not willing to sacrifice our constitutional rights to self defense because of any tragic event.

Have you noticed the common factor in all of these tragedies? Safe Zones! Safe or gun free zones are not safe. When law abiding citizens are deprived of their right to self defense, the psychopaths come out of the wood work and murder people in mass where they know there won’t be any resistance. There aren’t any mass shootings at police stations or gun shows.

Notice something else. Violence is not limited to guns. All over the world, violent mass casualty events happen in the absence of guns. In Great Britain, a soldier was murdered by a Muslim with an ax adjacent to his own barracks. In Japan, people with long knives murdered many people. In Boston and Oklahoma City, bombs made out of house-hold items were used.

It’s not a matter of the accessibility of guns. It’s the state of the heart and soul of people. And regular folks deserve a fighting chance. A society disarmed by the state is as safe today as a baby seal during hunting season, not very much.

Let’s stop the dopey lists and celebrity videos demanding that the rights of citizens who murdered no one yesterday be sacrificed because some knucklehead racist wanted to start a race war. Let’s use common sense. Bad guys don’t follow laws.

You want to stop these mass casualty events? Buy a gun, take a safety class, get your permit to carry. Don’t live in a state where you can do that? Change the laws or move to a state that recognizes your rights. End of story.

Watch the dopey celebrity gun grabbing video at the website below.

Share This:

“Gun Free Zones” Once Again a Magnet for Violence in Navy Yard Shooting

by Jeremy Griffith
The American Millennium

Remington 870 shotgun like the one used at the Navy Yard shooting.

Remington 870 shotgun like the one used at the Navy Yard shooting.

Would it surprise anyone to learn that Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis was the subject of an investigation 6 weeks before the shootout in which he killed 12 people and in which he himself was killed?

According to a report from Fox News, that’s exactly what happened. A police officer following up on a complaint spoke to Alexis. The man told the officer he was hearing the voices of three people who were talking through the walls of his hotel room and keeping him awake with vibrations from microwaves. See the full story from Fox News reporter Jana Winter here.

The big questions here is, why do people with obvious mental health issues continually sneak through background checks and obtain fire arms and why was it that the Navy seemingly did not follow up on this IT subcontractor who was issued a DOD Secret Clearance to work on the base?

An even larger question perhaps is, why do we continually listen to the anti-gun politicians and celebrities who want to rob us of our rights and tell us the government will take care of us and the world will be safer if we all just disarm?

I would contend that if a man with mental illness can shoot up a Navy outpost with impunity then we are not safer for obeying the current paradigm and leaving our guns at home. If you are not safe at a military base, where can you be safe?

It should be obvious to everyone that so-called gun free zones don’t work as intended. Instead of being safe havens free of violence, they instead become a magnet for chaos from the criminally insane and mischievous that wants to cause harm to the innocent.

I further contend that gun rights are not negotiable. We should be arming our Soldiers and Sailors to keep them and us safe, and legislation should be enacted to put temporary holds on people with severe mental illness to prevent them from obtaining firearms.

In the wake of this tragedy, the left leaning main stream media again attempts to persuade the people into the erroneous thinking that guns, particularly assault weapons are the problem. That is why once again they attacked the AR-15 as the culprit weapon of the attack when it turns out that the shooter used a Remington 870 pump action shot gun, a weapon designed for hunting. Both CNN and The New York Daily News reported that the AR-15, like the one allegedly used in other mass shootings was also used in this incident, which the FBI later debunked. See The Blaze article here. It would be laughable how the mainstream always seems to get it wrong if it were not so tragic.

If we are to be truly safe, we must turn away from voices that say that we are nothing more than evolved animals and that there is no higher power to which we are accountable. That leaves us with a society bereft of any moral core and opens the door for violence. If I am not held accountable in the next life, then who is to stop me from taking advantage in this one? We should also stop listening to the voices of people who want to take our guns away. If you aren’t safe on a military base like Fort Hood or the Washington Navy Yard, then you aren’t safe anywhere. Buy a gun, get training on how to use it safely, and start carrying it with you where ever you go.

Until society changes, we must change our selves to be prepared for a society that is broken. Heaven help us.

Share This:

Gun Control: A Social Worker’s Perspective

Note from the Jeremy Griffith, Creator of The American Millennium Online

The issues of gun control, mental health, mass shootings and violence are complicated ones in our society. These issues can not be solved by the sweep of a pen or any quick fix. A debate must happen so that all the angles can be heard and common sense solutions can be put forward. We’ve asked our friend Michael Arieta, a licensed clinical social worker in Minnesota, to give us some perspective in this very important debate. This article has been cross-posted from his website at 

by Mike Arieta, L.C.S.W-MN

Guest Columnist

Mike Arieta, LICSW-MN, Proprietor of New Path Counseling

Mike Arieta, LICSW-MN, Proprietor of New Path Counseling

The issue of gun control has been an on-going situation over the years, but has gained increased attention due to recent events.  Over the past few weeks there has been much attention given to tougher laws, increased mental health screenings and increased security.  I want to take time to address this complicated issue of gun control from one social workers perspective and take the discussion on this issue in perhaps a different direction then where it has been going so far.

 I want to point out a myth that this debate has brought out.  A myth that has come out is that mass murders are committed by seriously mentally ill people.  In an article by Michael B. Friedman that appeared in the January 17, 2013 edition of the Huffington Post.  Friedman points out that people with mental illness are not likely to be violent and that acts of mass murder are carried out by some who are mentally ill, but these types of acts are also likely to be carried out by those who are not mentally ill.  This is an important point to make because there have been calls for increased attention to those with mental illness.  Does this mean that people who have identified themselves as having issues with mental health have limited rights?  I am not talking about the right for a person with mental health issues to own a gun, but rather are persons with mental health issues going to be labeled violent and have their access limited to the community at large?  This is a question that remains to be addressed in the debate.

Aside from the issue of mental health and gun use, I want to bring out a deeper discussion of why people may choose to use violence to deal with some situations.  I have pondered this for some time and have wondered how much the role of shame has played in a person’s choice to use violence over other options.  First I need to define a key difference between shame and guilt.  The word shame is defined per the Social Work Dictionary 5th edition (Baker 2003) as:

A painful feeling of having disgraced or dishonored oneself or those one cares about because of an intentional act, involuntary behavior or circumstance.

Guilt is defined per the Social Work Dictionary 5th edition (Baker 2003) as:

An emotional reaction to the perceptions of having done something wrong, having failed to do something or violating important social norms.

When you look at these two definitions there is an important difference between the two states.  Guilt is an emotional reaction to violating social norms and to put it simply says “I did something bad.”  Shame on the other hand is a much deeper feeling in which a person internalizes feelings of negative self worth.  Basically, shame says “I am a bad person.”

When I look at the incidents of mass violence and violence in general I have wondered if the person or persons committing the violence have experienced shame in some way.  My point is that if shame is left unattended and not dealt with that a person may choose to use violence to deal with the feeling of being wronged or slighted by others.  This choice may not be used for a few incidents, but over time if a person experiences many incidents of being wronged either by others, systems or even by themselves they may feel the only way around these intense feelings is to hurt others to feel vindicated.  The other issue that is related to shame is power or the lack of it.  When a person lacks the power to make changes to deal with the shame they have experienced they may choose violence as a way to achieve power.

For me the issue of gun control is more than banning guns or not, it is more about looking at why people choose to use violence in the first place.  I believe that when the underlying issues of violence are addressed, you may see a reduction in all violence in general.  I also believe that when a person is given the chance to be heard and they are able to get their story out, it goes a long way to reducing the feelings of shame and guilt that if left unchecked can lead to violence.

Brené Brown Ph.D. has done some excellent work on vulnerability and work on shame.  I have included a link to her work on shame.  She addresses the issue of how shame impacts our lives.  She has focused her work on listening to people’s stories and learning about what pain they have been through as well as what people have done to deal with these intense feelings.  When you get to the site, please click on the “listening to shame” video.

I have stated this in a previous post on new path notes that I believe it is very important for people of all ages to have a safe place and a safe person in which to share their hurts.  I believe if a person is truly heard the feelings of shame and hurt can be reduced.  I am speaking of all violence types not just those involving guns.  When people start to deal with the feelings that are behind the violence, violence can be reduced.  When people are given the chance to be heard they begin to heal.

© 2013 Mike Arieta MSW, LICSW, LMSW


Share This:

Race and Gun Violence in the Media; Are We Getting the Whole Picture?

by Jeremy Griffith

Does political correctness in the media taint our perception of race, crime and incidents of self defense with guns? In view of the recent Trayvon Martin story, columnist Michael Filozof of the American Thinker explores these issues in his article, “What if Trayvon Martin had been white, and the shooter black?”

The Christopher Cervini murder investigation presents such a scenario. It shares many details similar to that of Trayvon Martin, only in reverse. Cervini, a 17-year old white teen and his friends were meandering through a Greece N.Y. neighborhood on a cold day in 2009. They had been drinking gin and rifling through cars looking for loose change and cigarettes when they were confronted by Roderick Scott, a black man, who shot Cervini twice, killing him.

In both the Martin and Cervini cases, there was a 911 call before the shooting. In the Cervini case an argument can be made that the boys were committing a crime, albeit a minor one. No such assertion can be made for Martin.

Scott was originally charged with murder, but the charge was downgraded to manslaughter and at the end of the trial he was acquitted by the jury. The jury apparently decided that Scott was justified in his self defense claim.

In a discussion on Internet radio, host Kira Davis and blogger Talitha McEachin interview the Cervini family, (see discussion beginning around 17:30 of the program). While they admit the boys were going through cars in the neighborhood, the family asserts that Christopher was never in any trouble with the law before his death and didn’t deserve to die. The family claims that Scott had no right of self defense,  that he was never in any danger, and their son would still be alive if Scott had remained in his home. The family further asserts that their son’s case was grossly mishandled and largely ignored by the media.

Update: Cervini family interview with Kira Davis and Talitha McEachin. Video adaptation by Jeremy Griffith

The role of the media in covering these two stories is a subject of debate. Davis and Filozof agree that media chooses to ignore the Cervini story because it doesn’t fit with the narrative of a black youth as a victim. African American columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson  believes the media hasn’t done enough to expose the victimization and racial profiling of a young black male at the hands of a white vigilante and says there is a concerted effort to trash the victim and protect a murderer.

It will be interesting to see how the discussion is shaped in the future in regards to race, self defense and the media’s role in coverage of interracial violence.



Share This: