Posted by: reformedmusings | December 19, 2012

King Obama and Queen Biden want your guns – dancing in the blood of the innocents to get them

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.” –Cesare Beccaria in Crimes and Punishments (1764), quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” —Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1840)

The world is full of Kings and Queens
Who blind your eyes and steal your dreams
It’s Heaven and Hell, oh well
And they’ll tell you black is really white
The moon is just the sun at night
And when you walk in golden halls
You get to keep the gold that falls
It’s Heaven and Hell, oh no!
Fool, fool!
–Black Sabbath (1980)

So, with most of the children from the Sandy Hook massacre not even buried, King Obama has jumped out to exploit this great tragedy. He has appointed Joe Biden, one of the original authors of the 1994 gun ban, to “propose a way ahead.” REALLY? Color me shocked. I wonder what he’ll propose? Mark my words – they’ll gladly pay you with the promise of mental health reform someday for taking your guns and freedom away today.

The left understands the power of propaganda. They make nonsensical use of terms and repeat them often and loudly. You know, the Nazi approach of repeating a lie loudly and often enough and people will believe it. See if you can spot the Obama lies:

But you know what — I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority of responsible law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war.

Weapons of war? Really? I know that Obama has zero real life experience and no military service, so let me help. The National Sport Shooting Foundation does an outstanding job of tracing the history of sporting rifles. Here’s a graphical summary from their website:

Note well that every rifle, pistol, and probably field knife created in the history of the world has served both civilian sporting and military purposes. Every. One. Rifled muskets were the “assault weapons” of their day. So were breach loaders in their day, and lever-actions in their day. Starting to see the picture? The same rifles and technology have always been used to oppose tyrants and hunt deer. King Obama is lying to you yet again, or is it still?

As the NSSF points out and sales statistics verify, the AR-15 platform is the most popular sporting rifle in America today. So, King Obama and his anti-freedom buddies wish to strip Americans today and in future generations of their basic sport shooting heritage. And don’t think that they will stop there. This is only the next step. Look what happened in England. Which, BTW, has the most violent crime in the first world. The U.S. isn’t even in the top 10, but we’ll join the U.K. at the top when violent predators can kill and rape without fear of armed opposition, just like in the U.K. today.

I’ve already written how the 2nd Amendment had the latest weaponry in view when written. The quote from Justice Joseph Story above goes to the heart of the Bill of Rights. The first four amendments in the Bill of Rights directly addressed specific abuses perpetrated by England on the American colonists, to avoid tyranny from ever being visited on Americans again. The war started when the British marched on Concord to, what, take our pumpkin pies? No, to confiscate our firearms and ammunition with which we could opposed them and fight for our liberty! Every anti-freedom liberal owes their very right to exist to the firearms they so hate and those brave enough to fight for liberty. How’s that for irony? Hundreds of thousands of our brothers and sisters in arms have died in darkness and remote hell-holes to preserve these liberties over almost three centuries. Will we really surrender them so easily over a tragic 20? Have we so lost our sense of the price of liberty?

And I’ll bet you didn’t see this coming either, from the folks that brought you the failed Fast and Furious in order to blame U.S. gun owners for Mexican drug violence:

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the administration will craft proposals for Congress to consider over the next few weeks. He said a “strong” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is also important.

Yes, the supposed chief defender of our laws wants his own failed bureaucrats, armed like special operators with virtually unlimited powers, to march on your Concord. BATFE should be dismantled and abolished, not strengthened.

Perhaps this graphic will tie all the threads together to give you the overall picture America faces today:

Without our liberty, we have nothing. I spent 30 years in uniform to defend ALL of our civil rights, not just the ones that King Obama likes.

Yes, folks, the world is full of kings and queens, who blind our eyes and steal our dreams. Obama and Biden are simply the latest two court jesters vying for royalty. The 1994 gun ban had no effect on crime and did nothing to prevent the Columbine murders in 1999, but the subsequent election did change the control of Congress and an eventual return of our 2nd Amendment freedoms.  When the emotions settle down, we will remember who exploited the tragic death of 20 children for political purposes. Remember the reason for the battles of Lexington and Concord in our original fight for liberty. When they tell you that you don’t need the 2nd Amendment, that’s when you need it the most.

itsaboutthebillofrights

Advertisements

Responses

  1. For one Obama and Biden DO NOT want your guns. Why would they need them anyway. If you think having a gun is going to protect you from the government you are horribly wrong. The government has tanks, drones, armored personnel carriers, etc… You’ll die if you try to be part of a armed rebellion against the government. Having your own gun will not protect you from the government in anyway. I’m not saying don’t go against the government, but do it nonviolently.

    • Thanks for stopping by to comment! I’m curious as to what you think Obama’s gun control is all about if not taking our guns. Shall I pull out his past quotes supporting that exact path? Others did that in great detail during both elections. Obama, Biden, and their friends definitely want to take our guns. With respect, I don’t see how that’s even in dispute since we have their own words on it.

      I’ve heard comments similar to yours about the government’s tanks, APCs, etc., many times. After 30 years in the military, I have a pretty good handle on our military capability. Insurgency operations have historically done quite well against similar odds. The odds were far greater against the American colonists facing the world’s greatest superpower in our revolution, yet we prevailed. Most recently, the so-called Arab spring showed how an armed and determined populace can prevail over tyrants. You also seem to assume that the entire armed forces would stand with tyranny. In our all-volunteer force, that’s incredibly unlikely. Katrina’s aftermath taught us a lot about keeping our oath to the Constitution, so the National Guard and police abuses after Katrina are unlikely to be repeated.

      The whole point of deterrence is not to have to use the force that you have, but to be credible enough that the enemy sees the cost of conflict to be higher than they are willing to pay. Our founders understood that concept well, a lesson for which they paid dearly. They ensured that our military swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not loyalty to an individual ruler, party, or administration.

      The American colonists had comparable weapons to the British, just in fewer numbers and less organized at first. We were able to capture or make what we didn’t have at first, like heavy cannons. That provided a critical element in our success, as well as the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Remember the reason for the Bill of Rights. The first part of the Constitution delineates the powers and duties of the federal government. The Bill of Rights delineate the rights of the people and restrictions on the federal government. All power resides with “the people”. Look again at that specific wording in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

      History since our revolution has repeatedly demonstrated the wisdom of our 2nd Amendment. The genocides of the 20th century all started with gun control and confiscations by governments to disarm the eventual victims. Our Founding Fathers lived that reality and gave us a great gift so that we might not suffer again at the hands of tyrants. The fact that you and I can blog freely over 200 years later stands as clear testimony to their wisdom. It should be well remembered that a government powerful enough to give you stuff is also powerful enough to take whatever it wants as well. Governments, however, do not grant rights. They can only recognize those granted by our Creator, as our Declaration of Independence clearly states.

      Thanks again for stopping by and commenting.

      • I thank you for your courtesy. I think there is some fear being pushed by gun manufacturers and other that profit from the sale of guns that “our” guns will be taken away. Gun control doesn’t mean taking one’s guns away. Taking into consideration that most guns deaths are suicides, limiting gun use would protect people from killing themselves, something that is unlikely. You say that in the Arab Spring an armed populace prevailed over tyrants. In actuality, to my knowledge the people of Egypt, of Tunisia and other places (still in Bahrain) didn’t engage in armed rebellion against their respective governments, rather they worked nonviolently. I agree that is it possible that the military will not completely stand with the establishment if an armed insurgency breaks out. You say that “the National Guard and police abuses after Katrina are unlikely to be repeated,” but I doubt that will be the case (there will always be abuses). If armed rebellion breaks out, I’m not supporting it unless it’s the last resort. At this time, it’s not the last resort. Armed conflict with the government should be avoided at all costs and just because we have “good odds” doesn’t mean we should do it. You also say that “The whole point of deterrence is not to have to use the force that you have, but to be credible enough that the enemy sees the cost of conflict to be higher than they are willing to pay,” but this principle could be applied to non-violent civil disobedience as with many radical social movements in history, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries.

        Now onto the American Revolution, you said that “the American colonists facing the world’s greatest superpower in our revolution, yet we prevailed…Our founders understood that concept well, a lesson for which they paid dearly. They ensured that our military swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not loyalty to an individual ruler, party, or administration. The American colonists had comparable weapons to the British, just in fewer numbers and less organized at first. We were able to capture or make what we didn’t have at first, like heavy cannons. That provided a critical element in our success, as well as the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Remember the reason for the Bill of Rights. The first part of the Constitution delineates the powers and duties of the federal government. The Bill of Rights delineate the rights of the people and restrictions on the federal government. All power resides with “the people”. Look again at that specific wording in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments… Our Founding Fathers lived that reality and gave us a great gift so that we might not suffer again at the hands of tyrants. The fact that you and I can blog freely over 200 years later stands as clear testimony to their wisdom. It should be well remembered that a government powerful enough to give you stuff is also powerful enough to take whatever it wants as well. Governments, however, do not grant rights. They can only recognize those granted by our Creator, as our Declaration of Independence clearly states.”

        For one, the revolution actually started in 1774 when armed colonists took over all of Massachusetts, eventually establishing a farmers’ government. Through their nonviolent actions of taking over courts and taking authority away from the established government in the state, the British soldiers stood by and without a shot or any bloodshed, the revolution had started. So, the whole revolution could have gone on without anyone dying on either side. But, in Concord in April 1775, someone fired (it could have been a British soldier or a militiaman). As the patriotic farmers-turned-soldiers fought throughout 1775 against the huge British army, they began to tire of war. By the end of 1775, most of these farmer-soldiers left for their farms and those who replaced them were poor and had nowhere else to go. But, one must remember that over 25,000 colonial soldiers died in the war, including eight thousand from battle. Also, even though many say the war ended in 1781, that is incorrect as 365 Americans died between 1781 and 1783, in a time that George Washington thought the war wouldn’t end. It did end but only because the British were losing in other places across the world, not necessarily because the colonial soldiers had won (if the British had wanted to, in 1781, they could have crushed Washington’s Continental Army and ended the war of independence, they had over 25,000 soldiers in North America which could have crushed the colonialists efforts). Plus, we can’t forget that without European help (Dutch, Spanish and French) we wouldn’t have won certain battles against the British either.

        As for the Bill of Rights, the traditional founders you seem to like so much, didn’t want it. When they wrote the Constitution, the people were uprising. The inner revolution (as one could call it) against the rich had continued throughout the revolutionary war after 1783 people were still mad. This is why there was a “regulator” movement in North Carolina in the 1770s and another “regulator” movement in the 1780s including Luke Day and Daniel Shay (the known “Shay’s Rebellion”) which worked to repeat what was done in 1774. The Constitution was created to go against the will of the people. The founders you like so well didn’t care about the people. They feared the people. That’s why they created a strong federal government, to support their interests and to entice enough of the people to stop governments from becoming more geared toward the people than the wealthy elite, which they were a part of (for the most part). The Bill of Rights was only added because there was a popular outcry. If that had not occurred, there would be no Bill of Rights today. The founders were wise in constructing a governmental system that worked for the rich while appeasing enough of the population to stave off widespread popular uprising. Plus, when the Preamble of the Constitution says “We the People,” when it was written it didn’t mean propertyless whites, slaves, women or Indians, it only meant rich white people. The people rest their rights under the protection of a government that is biased toward the rich and powerful, so the idea the government will protect these rights without push from the people is a false one on many levels. To address the last point in the section I quoted, the Declaration of Independence seems to endorse equality and all of that, but in fact it is false equality: how can a farmer born into a poor family be equal to a merchant born into a rich family? Questions along these lines fall short in the idea that “all men are created equal.” The Declaration of Independence may say people can alter or abolish their governments, but at the same time the “founders” did not want this to happen as the Continental Congress, a weak attempt at a central government was already biased toward the rich, so they wanted a stronger government to help their interests.

        You do say something that I’m not so sure about that “history since our revolution has repeatedly demonstrated the wisdom of our 2nd Amendment. The genocides of the 20th century all started with gun control and confiscations by governments to disarm the eventual victims.” Now I’m not going to debate with you about the first sentence. It’s the second sentence I’d debate. If you can come up with some good, hard evidence that’s not from talk-show hosts or mainstream media outlets (yes Fox News counts), supporting that statement that would be good. I just feel that’s something that would be thrown around by rabid opponents to gun control.

        Some of this information may be shocking, but that’s how popular myths get destroyed, myths that deserve to be obliterated. Thank you for responding.

        • Hello again,

          I think that we disconnected somewhere along the way. I will try to follow your paragraph order.

          Perhaps I did not communicate clearly. No one here is contemplating armed rebellion, just following our Founders’ original intent. Justice Joseph Story simply echoed the Founders’ intent for the 2nd Amendment – that no one would ever take away the people’s ability to resist tyranny, whether from internal or external sources. Without the deterrent of a well-armed populace, governments inevitably move towards accumulating ever-increasing power. Jefferson was particularly strong on this, but certainly not alone. The writings of the time both here and in Europe echoed that theme. A well-armed citizenry is a pro-active approach to preserving liberty. Civil disobedience is reactive by its nature, and hence useless as a deterrent. As for the Arab Spring, I more had in mind Libya and Syria.

          As for the history of our Revolution, I don’t see the point in discussing “what ifs”. The fact is that a small group of well-armed and determined colonists bested the greatest superpower on the planet at that time. Yes, we had outside help that was carefully cultivated by wise men like Ben Franklin. We wouldn’t have received that help if France thought that we had no chance to win. We made the price of victory too high for the enemy, and the British proved unwilling to pay that price. I don’t believe that the ending is in dispute.

          We are 180 degrees out on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights had its roots running back to the Magna Carta. The crux of the debate in this country came between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists. In the end, the Anti-Federalists prevailed and won a guarantee that if they supported the Constitution, there would be a Bill of Rights following right behind it. According to George Washington, who presided over the debates, there was a solid consensus for the Bill of Rights at the end of the convention. Were there bumps along the way and since? You bet, as there are in any human endeavor. With respect, all the other stuff you mention about to whom “We the People” referred sounds like typical revisionist history. Marx’ mythical class wars came way too late to use as a lens through which to view our constitutional debates. Post-colonial America reflected the culture of the day, for better or worse. That doesn’t detract from the monumental achievement that is the United States, however imperfect we may be at times.

          As for gun control leading to genocide, JPFO has an excellent and extensive collection of examples at http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart, which only goes up to 2002.

          So, nothing shocking in your comment, but some significant areas of disagreement. I try to limit my study to original sources like the Founders’ own writings, especially their letters and the records of discussions written at the time. That’s why I like reading John Jay and Joseph Story, as they comment upon the Constitution in the first generation, long before deconstructionism and Marxism tried to rewrite the history.

          Thanks again for the discussion.

  2. […] down our throats  and trample the Constitution while telling us it’s for our own good. Dancing in the blood of 20 children at Sandy Hook is just another day at the office for these miscreants. But they are not […]

  3. […] Lesson learned? We’ll see. […]

  4. […] the Constitution and confiscating said 300 million firearms. How do you think that would go? Don’t forget what sparked the hot part of the American revolution – the Brits were marching to confiscate colonist’s guns. That’s why we have a 2nd […]

  5. […] for real men to stand and fight. Remember why the British marched on Lexington and Concord – the redcoats were moving to confiscate the Americans’ firearms. That’s why we have a 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, but it’s also a lesson that […]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: