(Editor Note: The point of this article is playing itself out in the Elliot Rogers shooting. Please read our article on the shooting.)
There are enemies among us, don’t be fooled. The problem is that many of them mean well, but they just don’t get it. I have declined to review until now the pro-2nd Amendment movie “Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire” for just that reason. Narrated by the actor Ice T, there is a ton of good stuff in this movie, but it directs the viewer to incorrect conclusions, conclusions that are more dangerous to the future of America than any “assault weapons ban” could ever be.
After the Sandy Hook incident, a lot of the gun world jumped on the bandwagon of “just keep the guns away from the crazies” because they thought that it would protect the actual guns themselves from new knee-jerk laws that would require registration or confiscation. But what most of them didn’t realize is that the “mental health” war, when it comes to guns and 2nd Amendment freedom, is already being waged out there. This week the 7th District Federal Court of Appeals decided a 4th Amendment case that demonstrates the dangers of granting the government any blanket powers to confiscate weapons based on mental health. According to the police report, Krysta Sutterfield located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, jokingly said to her shrink, “I guess I’ll go home and blow my brains out.”
Hours later, despite assurances to the police and to the shrink (who called the police on her) that it was not a serious thought (if she said it at all which she claims she didn’t), she ended up in handcuffs and jail, with her firearms confiscated (even a BB gun). The court upheld the ruling of the lower court that she had no grounds to sue the police department for illegal search and seizure. How could they possibly come to this conclusion? They claimed that the police acted only to protect Sutterfield from harm. Take the time and read more of the details on the Alex Jones website. It boggles the mind how the cops could have self justified their gestapo tactics, and how the court could call it anything than brown shirt Nazis breaking down the door to “protect someone from themselves.”
First, since this is a movie review according to the title of the article, what does this all have to do with the movie? I hope many of you will actually go and buy to support a clearly well intentioned filmmaker. This movie actually had a theatrical release and was played in theaters, so it is no Youtube hack. But at the same time, “Assaulted” is desperately confused in its conclusions, and with a very smooth and subtle message, it is more dangerous than in your face new gun legislation. It is easy to fight an enemy when they are right there in front of you attacking. But when an enemy appears to be a friend, and may even think he’s a friend, yet loads a new artillery shell in your enemy’s howitzer while smiling at you, that is no friend. The creators of “Assaulted” may think that their middle of the road approach is great, but though a lot of it is excellent, the twisted conclusion that we need a database of mental defectives is misguided. Mental health qualifications will most likely the next flanking maneuver from the anti-gunners.
The film was clearly made for the firearm ignorant masses. One thing I love is that it repeatedly shows pieces of old commercials and printed advertisements showing how mainstream firearms used to be portrayed. The “progressive” takeover of the media has cost us that in the last 20 or so years, and just as we were in the process of regaining some of it, Sandy Hook happened. In December of 2012 you couldn’t turn on cable without seeing some show that had guns in it, and they weren’t all bearded red necks. Even super politically correct Kim Kardashian had just filmed an episode for one of her reality shows that featured her and the family shooting machineguns out on a yacht down here in Miami Beach. That part of the episode was scrubbed after Kim got a huge backlash for posting a picture of a small pistol to her Twitter after Sandy Hook. Guns have again become a strict taboo for all forms of mainstream media. The movie does a great job of showing this.
The problems begin with Assaulted when they let Ted Nugent open his mouth. If there isn’t a more polarizing figure against 2nd Amendment rights when it comes to the mainstream, I don’t know of it. Everything Ted says is of course true, and though I’m not a big fan of diplomacy in language, Ted goes the other way and deliberately tries to offend the sensibilities of really most folks. His quote implies that he has a loaded gun on him at the time, on the trade show floor where he is being interviewed, and which most likely has a no firearms policy even for concealed carry permit holders. Our own industry SHOT Show, where this may have been filmed has a no loaded guns policy that everyone I know obeys. There is no reason to have such an inflammatory comment in a supposed outreach movie.
Next the movies delves into a ton of boring history, all of it of course true, but not something that your average adult video gamer is going to be willing to sit down for and listen. Great, gun control was created in the US to control freed slaves. We, the choir, know this, but when you introduce the movie with a statement that some constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, then follow it with a news interview with a clearly erudite and intelligent black guy telling you that he wants the government to protect him from his gun owning neighbors, the movie just stumbles.
Thankfully, it gets up, and the following stories are worth the purchase price alone. The first is about the Black Panthers, who, in the 1960s, marched on the State House in California demanding the end to police brutality. Oh, and they carried loaded guns. The footage is awesome, and it makes note that it was a Republican congressman who introduced California’s ban of loaded open carry, and a Republican Governor, none other than Ronald Reagan himself, who signed it. The crazy thing is that in the middle of this segment, they interview a skinheaded white guy who explains that the government uses gun control to control “politically inconvenient” groups. As if he has any problem getting guns because he looks funny. Nuts. What they heck are they thinking?
The dialog in the movie is fabulous, better than nearly every “truther” documentary I have seen. Ice T struggles to keep up with the dense explanations at times, but if you listen close you’ll hear your first taste of the twisted conclusion the movie makes later, right after Ice T’s first mention of Sandy Hook.
“2012 saw 516 homicides in the city of Chicago, nearly 100 more than all US led coalition fatalities in Afghanistan that same year. Most of these deaths were caused by gang on gang violence, perpetrated by young blacks, yet there is no congressional investigation or task force trying to solve gang violence in this country. But have 20 white children in suburbia mowed down by a possibly insane and medicated individual and the whole power of the government is unleashed.”
See, great dialog, and the film really gets better as it goes along. They attempt to appeal to minorities, (including the usually forgotten Asians) women, and anyone who fears a disaster at some point where the government can’t protect them. But just after 1:15 out of 1:19 for the whole movie in my screener copy, the movie takes a header into exactly the next tactic that the anti-gunners intend to use against us next, especially in the next generation. The conclusion is an absolute red herring out of the complete blue, and should make you run screaming from showing this video to your middle of the road friends.
“How do we identify and treat people who are mentally unstable, or those who are likely to commit crimes? How do we prevent weapons from getting into the hands of mentally unstable individuals, and we can do that through background checks, through working with psychiatric professionals, that are feeding information into a database, so that you have to get a background check. If your name comes up in that system, then obviously you don’t qualify to own a firearm. I think it is sensible ideas like that, that we should be talking about.”
Now, most of us are out in the world today, and let me ask you, without having to pull statistics that just make the conversation more boring, how many people do you know who are:
- Going to a counselor?
- Going to an actual MD psychiatric doctor?
- On some kind of psychiatric medication? (requires the former)
- Claim to be suffering from depression?
- Have ever said anything related to the above about them to a doctor of any kind?
Any and all of those things will put you in our friend’s database. That is the danger of this film, and why I originally declined to review it, (because even on bad reviews, you guys buy a lot of stuff). Do I think that the filmmaker intentionally created a film that is in effect a covert op for gun control? No, I don’t think so. In fact that is why he was able to get researcher Gary Kleck in the film, along with Ted Nugent and a lot of clearly hardcore gun guns. Did these people see the line at the very end where one of the concluding interviews says that some gun laws “I’m sure won’t cause that much harm?” in advance of the release? No, probably not. I strongly doubt that Ted would have appeared in the film had he seen the final product first.
Remember that according to the famous psychiatric manual, called the DSM-5, we all have some kind of psychiatric malady that should require treatment. How hard is to get one of the usually left leaning shrinks to call you crazy when guns are involved? Not very. Just ask Krysta Sutterfield. Her case has now created caselaw at the Federal Appeals Court level that dismisses the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution if the police suspect you might be of harm to yourself.
Should you go buy Assaulted? For 10 bucks you’ll find a lot of interesting stuff on there I didn’t reveal so it wouldn’t be a total spoiler. See if you feel the same way, and please comment below. As a note, I did contact the filmmaker before SHOT Show this January and invited him to the booth, after sharing my concerns. I even offered to pay Ice T to make an appearance and sign copies of the film for him. He declined. Discussion is the only way to work through these opinions. Here in the GunsAmerica Magazine, it is something of a bully pulpit, but articles like this are meant to start a conversation, not teach a lesson. Assaulted is a really well put together film, and that is exactly why it is so dangerous.