|
Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party - Mao Tse Tung
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military - William Burroughs
Revolution? Yes, it all sounds rather “extreme”, but the cold hard reality of our era is not going to comfort us with diplomacies and niceties, so honestly, why should I have to sugar coat anything? We live in extreme times and there is no longer room for prancing around the ultimate consequences of that which is taking place in America today. This country is increasingly sliding towards the edge of internal conflict. The Liberty Movement and true Constitutionalists see it, subsections of Republicans and Democrats see it, and most of all, the federal government sees it. In fact, they may even be counting on it.
Over the past two years alone, multiple draconian policies have been enacted through executive order by the Obama Administration which build upon the civil liberty crushing actions of George W. Bush and press far beyond. The Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it. You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated potential targets of the state. Our rights have been made forfeit.
There is no ambiguous or muddled separation between the citizenry and the government anymore. The separation is absolute. It is undeniable. It is vast. It is only a matter of time and momentum, and eventually there will be unbridled oppression, dissent, and conflict. All that is required is a trigger, and I believe that trigger has arrived…
Though made to appear “complex”, the gun control debate is actually an incredibly simple issue. It all boils down to a couple of questions which gun grabbers rarely ask: How does the 2nd Amendment affect the future? That is to say, what was the original intent, and should we still value that intent as it applies to tomorrow? And, what will really happen if it is forcibly removed? Gun opponents act as though they are unaware of these questions, or maybe they don’t care. However, it is vital to their safety and the safety of our culture in general that they do finally consider the bigger picture.
We’ve all heard the prefabricated gun control talking points before. Some of them so old they predate us. They are numerous and most of them incredibly thin. The gist of the anti-gun position, though, could be boiled down to these three points...
Common Anti-Gun Arguments:
1) The 2nd Amendment is “outdated” and no longer relevant in today’s modern society.
2) We do not want to stop you from “defending yourself”, or interfere with the American tradition of hunting, but people do not need “military assault weapons” for either.
3) Your claimed freedom to own guns should not supersede my freedom to live without fear of guns. We exist in a society, and our society requires us to give up certain freedoms so that it can function.
Again, in response to these arguments, I have to ask, what does the 2nd Amendment mean for the future? What was its original intent? Gun control advocates would like to ignore the fact that the Constitution specifically protects a broad application of gun ownership, but when they cannot deny the legality of it, they instead turn to more abstract and existential methods of attack. They try to twist the original intent of the 2nd Amendment to further their goals. To respond briefly to each of the above fallacies:
1) The right to self defense from ANY threat, whether it be an individual, or a criminal government, does not “outdate”. It is a universal and eternal freedom. It is a foundational pillar of natural law. Even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist, I would still have the inborn right to arm and protect myself and those I love, and the best way to do that is to own firearms. The men who drafted the Constitution were far more intelligent than any pithy gun grabber today, yet, these socialist errand boys seem to believe that they have “surpassed” the wisdom of the Founders. The amount of ego required to fuel such an attitude boggles the mind…
Gun violence and violence in general will not end simply by banning firearms. The very idea that any society can remove all weapons from their sight is naïve to begin with. Criminals always find a way. Murder, rape, and mayhem will continue until you confront the root problem, which is the human mind, and the human heart. Only when these two things are balanced in all people will violence end. Disarming good men and women has never made a society “safer”. When the power of defense is removed from the people, someone, somewhere, will seek to abuse their weakness. The most armed entity of the time invariably becomes the subjugator, and usually this is the government. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc, all contained disarmed populations. The guns were gone, and still millions upon millions died. Modern day Mexico is a perfect example of a disarmed population that is now living in terror because of criminal organizations (which, of course, still have guns). Disarmament does NOT end gun violence, it only changes the dynamic of who uses that violence, and it makes innocent victims easier to attack.
2) Because the legal argument over the “interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment is essentially over, and the Supreme Court has ruled that gun rights do indeed apply to individuals, and not just collective bodies like the National Guard, gun grabbers are now reverting to the argument that we ARE allowed to defend ourselves with firearms, but the kinds of firearms we are able to use can still be limited. The goal of this argument is to fool gun owners who only possess conventional firearms (hunting rifles) into believing that they will not be personally affected if they support a ban on military style weapons. These wishy-washy hunting enthusiasts are often referred to as “Elmer Fudds” because of their gullibility.
All gun confiscation programs start by chipping away at the outer barriers of gun ownership. Like termites slowly chewing away at the wooden skeleton of a home, anti-gun proponents start small and end by destroying the entire edifice. Anyone who believes Feinstein’s legislation will begin and end with AR-15’s and AK-47’s is living in fantasy land. That said, the 2nd Amendment was not established for hunting purposes. Nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers do they mention “hunting” as their primary concern. Instead, gun rights are protected in order to ensure that the citizenry remains dominant over any centralized government that turns to corruption. We are supposed to police our own political leaders, and without military style arms, this becomes increasingly difficult.
Gun grabbers will argue that our government is not the enemy because it is derived through democratic elections. They will say that we can change it anytime we like in the voting box. I would point out that regardless of which party is placed in power through elections, nothing in terms of our direction as a country has been changed, and, that both parties support almost identical policies. For instance, Obama has come out in favor of nearly identical policy initiatives to Bush, and I can almost guarantee that many Republicans will sign onto the gun control efforts of Democrats despite their supposed pro-gun rhetoric. When the two party system becomes a one party system, voting becomes irrelevant.
Finally, they will admonish the idea of an armed citizenry keeping the government in check as a “fairy tale”. They will claim that in the face of modern military might, constitutionalists would be crushed. For what can an AK-47 do to an F-15? Apparently, they have never heard of Afghanistan, which has used AK-47’s and 30 year old armaments to repel two technologically advanced armies; the Soviet Union and the U.S. Of course, the Afghanis did not allow themselves to be disarmed…
3) Here is where we get into the nonsense of intellectual idiocy. The only real skill which academics seem to have is jumbling piles of logical fallacies together to make a single argument that sounds “rational”, but, in fact, isn’t. The third debate point is an extremely collectivist one, and collectivist arguments generally exploit the idea that individuals must sacrifice their personal freedoms in order for the group to function.
The truth is, the group does not matter. The perceived collective concerns and fears of a mass of people are not relevant. All that matters are the concerns of the singular man or woman, and whether or not those concerns are legitimate. If a person “fears” guns and gun violence, then that is their private problem, not the problem of our entire society. We as gun owners should not have to relinquish our rights because others are afraid of what MIGHT happen to them. We should demand that they control THEIR fear, instead of being allowed to control OUR guns. Just because a portion of our country shares this individual fear does not make that fear any more credible, or any more our problem.
Do They Know What They Are In For...?
Feinstein’s campaign for gun control is not hers alone; it has been the overall establishment’s work in progress for decades. I covered the broad based arguments of gun control advocates above because I wanted to illustrate the tangibility of gun ownership. I want to show you where we stand as constitutionalists, and I can say confidently that our moral and intellectual footing is strong. To be clear, when defenders of a particular idea are right in their position, they are much more likely to fight and die for that position, and they are much more likely to win.
In the beginning I asked what the 2nd Amendment means for the future of this country. Not only if it continues, but if it disappears. If I was a gun control proponent, I would weigh the aftereffects of my actions carefully, because the penalties will likely be dire…
I have heard it argued that Americans are passive. We didn’t rise up against the last Assault Weapons Ban. We didn’t rise up against the Patriot Act. We didn’t rise up against TSA molestation. We didn’t rise up against warrantless wiretapping, the assassination of U.S. citizens, or even the NDAA. The people who make this point, though, are not looking at the larger issue. It is one thing for our government to pass legislation; the wider application of that legislation on our streets and at our doorsteps is another matter.
Feinstein’s bill is unprecedented in the history of this country, and requires widespread enforcement in every town and hamlet in order to be effective. The way in which it is designed makes a violent response from the public inevitable. It reaches far beyond the Assault Weapons Ban of the 1990’s, calling for the creation of a massive database of almost all gun owners in the United States. This database will require citizens to submit their EXISTING firearms to cataloging, and the owners to be filed and fingerprinted like criminals.
The bill will ban the outright the sale, manufacture, and transfer of at least 120 models of firearms (which have not yet been named). It will ban the manufacture and sale of most if not all semi-automatic rifles and the bill specifically targets handguns as well. Large capacity mags and mag fed weapons will essentially disappear from gun stores. Though, those guns designated as “hunting rifles” will be exempt (for now).
Feinstein has also openly agreed with NY Governor Andrew Cuomo that government buy back programs (forced selling of firearms at a reduced price) and even physical confiscations are on the table:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...could-be-option
http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-...article/2516648
To put this bluntly, there are approximately 50 million gun owners (according to official estimates) in the United States. If only 2% of those gun owners refuse to submit to the Feinstein Database, and the feds attempt confiscation, they will have a massive revolution on their hands.
Many Americans, including myself, will not be strolling into the local Fusion Center to register our weapons. Why? Because gun registration reeks of fascism! Some might call this “cliche”, but let’s just examine the guidelines of the Nazi Gun Registration Program of 1938:
- Classified guns for "sporting purposes"
- All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
- Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law (meaning officials could have guns, citizens could not).
- Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
- The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
- Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
You see, we’ve witnessed the Feinstein gun bill before, many times through history. We know how it ends, so, there is very little incentive for us to go along quietly.
The database itself is truly the crux of it all. It basically begs to be defied. When a government has become openly hostile to common people, destructive of their economy, and oppressive of their individual rights, it only follows that gun registration will lead to outright confiscation later down the road or imprisonment for the owner. Many Americans are simply not going to fall into the same trap that past societies have fallen into. The eventual refusal of millions of citizens to voluntarily register will lead to a definite federal response.
The Department Of Homeland Security has obviously taken this into account, at least partly, by stockpiling over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the span of a year, most of which are used in weapons distributed by the government for domestic enforcement. Their projected scenario, I believe, involves limited resistance from people like myself; “gun nuts” and “liberty freaks” who are on the “fringe” of the populous. At least, that’s what the headlines will say. In the end, who will care if a few “conspiracy theorists” take a bullet in the quest to end gun violence, right? But then again…
What I see in America is a much harder stance against gun confiscation than at any time in recent memory, and far less compromising than in the 1990’s. Gun grabbers are, in my view, walking into a hornets nest. Most average firearms enthusiast may be less aware of the deeper problems at hand, but they know when they are about to be raped, and will react in kind. We in the Liberty Movement are often accused of “radicalizing” people against government authority, but I have to say, if that is the case, then the Feds are doing a much better job than we ever could.
Simultaneously, the UN (which most gun owners despise) is helping matters along by using the recent Sandy Hook shooting as a springboard for a reintroduction of their failed international Small Arms Treaty:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/..._n_2373417.html
"European and other U.N. delegates who support the arms trade treaty told Reuters on condition of anonymity they hoped Newtown would boost support for the convention in the United States, where gun control is an explosive political issue."
"Newtown has opened the debate within the United States on weapons controls in ways that it has not been opened in the past," Abramson said, adding that "the conversation within the U.S. will give the (Obama) administration more leeway."
The UN has always claimed that their small arms treaty would NOT restrict private gun ownership in the U.S., and that it only deals with the international trade of illicit arms. Yet, they try to use gun control actions in the face of Sandy Hook as a rationale for reopening negotiations? They can't have it both ways. Either they are trying to tie the treaty to domestic gun ownership in the U.S, or they aren't. Will our government sign on to an international agreement to restrict private gun ownership on top of Feinstein's gun grab bill?
To put this in the most basic terms: registration and restriction equals revolution. Count on it. It is not a matter of what we "want", it is a matter of what is necessary. Without a citizenry armed with weapons of military application, we lose our last deterrent to tyranny, and thus, we lose everything. When backed into a corner, a victim has two options: he can lie down and die, or, he can fight regardless of the odds. Sadly, this is where we are in America; fear, servitude, subservience, or civil war.
Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws - Edward Abbey
|
