Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); by Scott Lazarowitz
I do not intend to write something here to convince the emotionally hysterical gun-control crowd to abandon their fantasy of removing guns from the world. They live in a fairyland and there appears to be no way to change their minds. Nor am I trying to even convince the so-called conservatives, the Republicans, the alleged "gun-rights" advocates to stop it with their kowtowing. This is really just a rant (albeit an informed rant).
But I do want to note that the point of the right to bear arms ? which is a right, by the way, not a government-granted privilege ? is for people to have the means to defend themselves, not just from everyday criminals and predators, but mainly from government tyrants and their minions.
I just don?t understand the so-called gun defenders and gun store owners suddenly joining the irrational hysterics of "Why would anyone need an assault rifle, or military-style weapon? We should ban those." Well, as history has shown, if you?re going to forbid the civilian population from having certain firearms, then for your own safety you will have to forbid police and military from having them too.
But a lot of people don?t seem to understand that. They trust government police and military. A lot of people feel safe with an armed government and a disarmed civilian population. (It really should be the other way around!)
And why is almost no one from the gun-rights crowd pointing out that it?s really the government?s gun restrictions, gun-free zones and "zero tolerance," in which honest, law-abiding civilians (e.g. teachers, school administrators and other adult school workers) are forcibly disarmed by government bureaucrats and police, that increases the vulnerability of these children to an attack by an armed intruder?
This is why I call people "sheeple," "zombies," and assert that many people now are totally hypnotized and brainwashed to love and adore their most vicious predators and threats to society: The State and its loyal flunkies.
For clearly, Washington is preparing for something, whether it is economic collapse and civil unrest, "natural" disasters, or civil war ?
Whatever it is, it?s something, and we know the bureaucrats are preparing for something, given the Department of Homeland Security?s purchases of hundreds of millions of hollow-point bullets and high-powered battle rifles, Barack Obama?s Executive Orders to seize control over mass communications in America and seize U.S. infrastructure and people involuntarily, Obama?s preparing the FEMA rendition camps (not to mention the many coffins and mass graves being prepared), the U.S. Army?s manual which outlines a plan to kill rioters and demonstrators, the Army?s training troops to drive tanks through U.S. streets, FEMA?s preparing for food storage confiscation, and more unconstitutional and criminal Obama-police state policies now.
There is also Obama?s NDAA provision of indefinite detention of Americans, which gives the President the power to have the military seize and detain indefinitely anyone that the President or his minions have deemed a "terrorist," a "combatant," or otherwise a criminal, without providing any evidence against the accused.
Obama also has claimed the power ? upheld by the court bureaucrats ? to assassinate anyone he chooses, based on his own reasons, without any due process or any evidence against the accused.
A widely publicized example of that was Obama?s assassination of Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose only "crime" was criticizing U.S. foreign policy within his religious sermons, totally protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (I have addressed that here and here.)
You see, the power-grabbers have started with the Muslims, after the widespread post-9/11 brainwashing of Americans toward anti-Muslim prejudice and acceptance of anti-Muslim government policies and militarism.
So, thanks to the sheeple zombies? approval of the post-9/11 hysterical "War on Terror," Washington has now been cracking down on speech, critics of stupid government bureaucrats, political dissent and government whistleblowers. But start with the Muslims and they will go on from there.
More recently, former Marine Brandon Raub?s Facebook posting questioning the government?s official explanation for 9/11 caused such a stir, he was criminally abducted by Secret Service and local authorities and involuntarily detained in a psychiatric ward. He is not the first victim of the State?s such crimes, as there have already been others in recent years.
Among the Obama Regime?s war on whistleblowers, Army Private Bradley Manning suffered major abuse during his extensive pretrial military imprisonment. Manning allegedly released videos and documents to WikiLeaks exposing our own government bureaucrats? war crimes in Iraq and the bureaucrats? incompetence and corruption as well.
Former CIA asset Susan Lindauer was another government whistleblower who has already suffered at the hands of the un-American central planning degenerates in Washington.
More examples of the government bureaucrats? war on speech, political dissent and government criticism include former Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, who wants to "cognitively infiltrate" Internet sites and social media, and Obama?s new law in which Constitutionally-protected protests will be stifled. And even Facebook has suspended the account of a user who questioned the official narrative involving the Sandy Hook, Connecticut school shooting.
But it is clear that Washington wants to stifle criticism and dissent amongst the masses, and us schmucks who do have a right to criticize the most buffoonish and imbecilic bureaucrats who have ever pervaded Washington, DC and who should be criticized, lambasted, raked over the coals, satirized, lampooned ? all totally protected by the First Amendment, regardless of what the Supreme Bureaucrats say and/or whether there?s a "War on Terror" or not.
Besides the government?s cracking down on free speech, it has become oppressive in other ways. Examples include the TSA?s VIPR teams now invading the bus terminals, Amtrak stations (which is being encouraged by all the filthy government hand-outs, of course), and on roads and highways, the government siccing S.W.A.T. teams on alleged student loan defaulters, and the FDA?s war on raw milk.
As Jon Rappoport noted, government bureaucrats don?t like it when the people over whom they rule do things on their own. That is why government bureaucrats are now forcing independent-minded people back on the government-controlled grid.
The government bureaucrats don?t like it when the people express their own independence and who show that they do not need those government bureaucrats, or their alleged "security" workers to defend the people. That is why government bureaucrats insist on "gun-free zones," in which children are left vulnerable to attackers, rather than allowing the adults at the school to be armed to protect those children from real harm.
"Let?s put a police officer or security guard in the school," the compromisers cry. However, locking down the schools like this turns the kids into prisoners, and won?t protect them.
The near impossibility of being able to reach those who can rightfully be considered "sheeple" is frustrating now.
For those who are still in denial of the possibility that the U.S. government could possibly ever turn the guns on the people, there is already precedent of this. During the 19th Century American War on Independence, besides President Abraham Lincoln?s State-murders of many thousands of innocent civilians in the South and his army?s murders of hundreds of military protesters in the North, as Thomas DiLorenzo pointed out,
Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without any due process; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers...censored all telegraphs; rigged elections; imprisoned duly elected members of the Maryland legislature along with Congressman Henry May of Baltimore and the mayor of Baltimore; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia to give the Republican Party two more U.S. senators; confiscated firearms in the border states in violation of the Second Amendment?And there are other examples of those abuses, committed by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and FDR, besides the more recent examples.
And regarding the right to bear arms, a lot of people actually find it absurd if you point out how Hitler took advantage of gun control laws already in place, and further strengthened them to disarm Germans, mainly the Jews. So had Jews in Germany been able to exercise their right to bear arms, many of them might have been able to resist the Nazis from abducting them and taking them to their deaths. (See David Kopel and Richard Griffiths on that issue.)
It really should be the reverse of what the sheeple want: We would be much better off, much safer and more secure with an armed civilian population and a disarmed government!
Finally, while Premier Obama violates his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" on a daily basis, one individual who has declared with very strong and straightforward language his personal pledge to resist the fascist disarmament campaign is Stewart Rhodes, Founder of the Oath Keepers organization. Included in his statement of resistance, Rhodes declares,
I pledge to refuse compliance with any and all laws that attempt to strip me and my children of those arms ? I will use nullification, civil disobedience, and active resistance against all such laws. I will nullify, disobey, and resist as an individual, and I will work with my neighbors to nullify, disobey, and resist as towns, counties, and states. We will not disarm, we will not comply, and we will resist?And he means it. I don?t know anyone personally who has the guts to declare such a strong statement of resistance to government tyrants. I know I don?t.I pledge to defend myself, my neighbors, my town, county, and state, against any attempt to forcibly disarm them pursuant to any "assault weapons ban" or any other illegitimate "law" passed by oath breakers within Congress, or pursuant to any illegitimate order, action, or decree by the oath breaker within the White House. We will not disarm. We will resist. And if given no other choice but to fight or to submit to abject tyranny, we will fight, just as our forefathers in the American Revolution fought against the tyrants, usurpers, and oath breakers of their day.
If we are presented with the "choice" of submission to tyranny or fighting in defense of our natural rights, we will fight, as our forefathers fought, when the British Empire attempted to disarm them and confiscate the military pattern arms, ammunition, and supplies of their time. We will make the same choice as Patrick Henry made, when he rejected "peace" purchased at the price of chains and slavery, and said "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" I too choose liberty or death.
I hereby reaffirm my oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor in defense of the principles of liberty enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, for which our forefathers spilled their blood. We will not let the Republic fall without a fight.
But we do need more Stewart Rhodes in America, that?s for sure.
(And fewer buffoonish, dangerous government bureaucrats, that?s for sure.)
_
Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a writer and cartoonist, visit his blog.
(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Latest Commentary
- Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind of Violence
- Private Murders versus Government Murders
- Who Goes to Prison Due to Gun Control?
- Gun Control = Gun Violence
- The Spontaneous Order of the Dance Floor
- Scratch A "Liberal," Find A Fascist: The Case Of Barbara Boxer
- American Children and Foreign Children
- If Obama Is Opposed To Guns, Why Did His Administration Just Purchase 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammunition?
The fact is, The Second Amendment (the original TSA not the one that gropes you before you get on a plane) is part of the acknowledged necessity for the "security" of a "free state". If that security is threatened by hoodlums, robbers, rapists, thieves, thugs or mafia does not matter. Many would say, "What about government?" I already said robbers, rapists, thieves, thugs and mafia, need I say more.
The uniform of the robbers, rapists thieves, thugs and mafia DO NOT MATTER! What matters is that we need a militia of the people, well regulated (well functioning) and they need to be armed. That is EXACTLY what CCW/LTCH holders are. THEY ARE THE MILITIA!!! No. they don't do weekend exercises wearing camouflage and they don't salute a command but, in the terms of the constitution, they are the militia. ...and we are necessary. We stand in the gap between unlawful actions and the aforementioned bad guys, uniformed and non-uniformed. The arms simply give us greater capability.
The founders new that if we didn't have the "liberty teeth" we would be much less effective. This is why they recognized the right to bear arms very early on in the constitution. ...and until it is repealed, Steward Rhodes and I will be ready and willing at any given time to defend liberty with violent force.
The founders knew that when a government has a monopoly on violence that it would be used for unlawful purposes. Just as the Sandy Hook incident, our government see the ability to deny us our rights so it may have more power over use. The founders knew that government power, unaccountable, would grow to the point of oppression. The right to keep and bear arms eliminates that and THAT is the very reason why they seek to take it away.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
