Isn’t it About Time…

…that a movie was made, paralleling “Reefer Madness” exactly, scene for scene, gesture for gesture, line for line including the dramatic introduction, merely substituting “marihuana” for guns?  Yes, I believe it is.  An NRA agent arrives in town, starts promoting guns, and all hell breaks loose.  “Gun Madness”.

If you haven’t seen the 1930s movie “Reefer Madness”, by all means do watch.  It’s not only illustrative of what the totalitarians have been up to for generations, it’s a real hoot, especially considering that those who made it were trying very hard to appear serious.  I can picture Di Fi standing before the concerned parents at the school meeting, eyes glaring, finger pointing at the camera… don’t suppose the VPC or other anti-gun groups could be talked into providing some of the funding?


9 thoughts on “Isn’t it About Time…

  1. Sorry, Joe, but as a good friend of mine used to say, “that dog won’t hunt.”

    Refer was never involved in 30,000 violent deaths a year.

  2. Mikeb;
    The parallels are; People see something they don’t like, they want to set up a new authority, setting a new precedent for control, so they demonize the hell out of it, even lying through their teeth, to scare people into accepting said new authority. Both gun control and drug laws were motivated initially by racism. When people are scared or whipped up into hatred, they’ll accept something that is clearly, and was historically seen as, blatantly unconstitutional. Historically, Prohibition, gun laws and drug laws are inseparable in that they share a common “career path” (the difference being that Prohibition at least was seen as requiring a constitutional amendment). None of them could have been enacted without a super-demon– a straw man created by those who wanted the power beforehand. In 1936, drugs, including the “marihuana menace”, were to be seen as being at least as deadly and frightening as guns in the hands of Mexicans are portrayed today by the antis. Today, with drug laws secure and doing their job of enriching and empowering government interests and criminal organizations, the focus is on other things, and gun rights are always a target, being a focus of hatred for statists, power mongers and criminals.

    Another parallel, and possibly the one that is sticking most in your craw, is that Reefer Madness is seen as the stupid, sick joke that it is, displaying the idiocy and shameless dishonesty of statists everywhere. It has been enjoyed by pot smokers and libertarians for generations now, as a sort of cult classic. I am only too happy to rub in.

  3. “Reefers” may not be involved in 30,000 violent deaths each year (that includes justified and even praiseworthy homicides) but it is also not involved in 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 incidents each year where it was used to defend innocent life from immediate permanent injury or death.

    Gun Madness, the video, sounds like a good idea to me.

    If you want a more serious look at gun control watch Innocents Betrayed.

  4. I like the use of the word “involved”. That’s so cute. How many violent deaths, and how many tragedies of all kinds “involve” motor vehicles? Ban ’em? How many crimes “involve” organic foods? Ban ’em or we’re all gonna dieeee! Puppies? How many innocent children die as a result of getting puppies? Don’t try to tell me it’s zero. Hey; if it can save only one child’s life… How many rapes “involve” Levis jeans, or “involve” Nike shoes? None?

    It’s like the way totalitarians use the term “smoking related illnesses”. If you die of a heart attack, whether you’ve ever touched tobacco in your life or not, you have died from a “smoking related illness”. Don’t try that here.

    This post has nothing to do with gun statistics per se, or about how many pot heads commit crimes (and don’t tell me it’s zero). It’s about calculated, wild distortion, the promotion of fear and the fomenting of hatred being used as tools for growing the scope and power of government at the expense of liberty, i.e fraud, and the fact that this same set of tactics is in full use today. It works as well as ever. It’s also about mocking such fraud. If you come on here and try to perpetuate one of today’s frauds in response (the fraud that says government can make us safer by restricting our liberties and eating out our substance) then it’s about you too. Smile; you’re in the movie.

  5. I have fond memories of being shown RM in the eighth grades as part of the anti-drug propaganda classes. I ended up laughing so hard I was sent home for the day!

  6. Lyle, Sorry for not noticing it was you and not Joe who posted that crazy comparison. Of course you guys can spin it and twist it in order to insist it makes sense. And of course you claim there are “1,000,000 to 3,000,000” DGUs per year. You have to insist on that because without it your whole argument crumbles.

    And in the worst case, you can fall back on the statement made on my blog recently by Mike W., that it doesn’t matter even if there were millions of murders and no DGUs at all, it’s a constitutionally protected right. Some of you even say “God given.”

    But, I don’t buy it.

  7. And just how is it you determine whether to “buy” an argument MikeB302000? What is the process by which you determine truth from falsity?

    Using the case in point as an example walk us through all the steps. Show all your work.

Comments are closed.