Rhetoric on both sides has been heating up, most recently among "patriot blogs." Take this piece from TL In Exile:
http://tlinexile.blogspot.com/2012/12/t ... began.html
The quotes and events he lines up for us are true, minus the bit about the DHS informant. The question for us: Is the passage of an AWB and enforcement via confiscation an act of war? Feinstein plans to introduce the bill on Jan 6, when Congress rejoins. Who knows if there will be a debate or not before a vote in the House?
Now look at this article by Kurt Hoffman:
http://www.examiner.com/article/feinste ... nfiscation
Indeed, many people have come out in favor of seizing privately owned arms, from the judge in Arizona who sentenced Jared Loughdner, to the usual suspects in Hollywood and NYC. There is little consensus among the pro-gun crowd.
Those, such as Wayne LaPierre, who have defended the 2nd Amendment in the wake of Newtown have been labeled murders and crazies. They have received death threats or other forms of harassment. Rouge journalists, like the one in NY, have taken it upon themselves to brazenly attack harmless, lawful citizens by flooding the web with their personal info simply because they own a material object.
We are seeing a frenzy unlike anything since 911. Everyone wants more security, more peace, more perception of doing something no matter what the cost or who pays for it.
So, is the passage of an AWB and the enforcement via confiscation be considered cause for war, "casus belli"? Let's look at our own history.
The Revolution turned hot in April 1775 after the battles of Lexington and Concord. In July of that year, the Continental Congress published the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms. It would be overshadowed by the Declaration of Independence one year later, almost to the day. The Declaration of Arms was to justify open war against the British government.
In a nutshell, here are some key provisions:
- The Parliament had exercised unconstitutional authority over the Colonies in the wake of the Seven Years War. This included sweeping power grabs such as the Declaratory Act, Quartering Act and Coercive Acts.
- Colonial grievances had been repeatedly submitted and ignored or rejected.
- Excessive taxation without equal representation in government.
- Use of the vice admiralty courts. These were jury-less tribunals that offered financial incentives to judges for smuggling convictions.
Based on this precedent, could you argue any of these today?
REPRESENTATION and TAXES
After Newtown, there still exists a complete media blackout on any positive stories about gun ownership. Despite statistics and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, the media would have you believe that no one does anything good with a gun. Many of us know better. Many do not. Television stations like Discovery began pulling all gun related shows from their lineup. Members of Congress previously given good ratings by the NRA began to turn coat on the issue, voicing support for new restrictions. Wayne LaPierre was heckled at his first press conference, and then we watched as his remarks were brushed aside as "whimsical" or "nonsensical." Larry Pratt withstood a barrage of vicious, ad hominem attacks by Piers Morgan in a courageous effort to put some logic into the public domain. The death threats continue to pour in. Now we have Demand A Plan airing adds calling for all kinds of bans on various guns. People like Michael Moore go as far as to blame all of it on "the white man's continued fear of black people." People in powerful positions, such as Feinstien, the judge in AZ and Bloomberg stating that not only are they in favor of confiscation, but that the government is quite capable of pulling it off. All of this doesn't take into effect the countless compromises that were made in every major gun bill since 1934, or the rising taxes on ammunition, guns or FFLs. Taxes also happens to tie right into the current debate on the rich "paying their fair share."
In my opinion, you can certainly argue that gun owners have not been represented effectively. They have been abandoned. If any of your have seen 12 Angry Men, you will recall this quote, "The defense never conducted a thorough cross-examination. He was appointed by the court to defend the boy. He didn't seem interested."
EXCESSIVE POWER
IL Governor Pat Quinn has vowed to fight the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals after it ordered his government to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. The court ruled that IL's sweeping ban in the name of public safety was not justified, either by statistical or anecdotal evidence. For as long as any of us can remember, IL is just one example of a government that ignores the Constitution. After 911 the nation passed such laws as the Patriot Act. Now we have the NDAA which allows indefinite detention of civilians by military powers without a jury trial. We have seen many times in recent history the use of excessive power on a variety of scales. Eddie Compass, ordering the confiscation of gun post-Katrina. Eric Holder, releasing two convicted Black Panthers from prison. Nancy Pelosi, ramrodding the Obamacare law through Congress and breaking numerous procedural rules to do it. There are also countless incidents of police departments stealing property through "asset forfeiture." The TSA on the other hand, simply takes what they want from checked luggage. There is also the issue of land seizures for public works or environmental protection, warrent-less wiretaps and SWAT raids based on rumors or faulty intelligence. CPS can take your kids based on an anonymous tip, which they don't have to prove or reveal the identify of.
You could argue that government on all levels, in many states, counties and towns, has exercised excessive power. As Washington said, "Government is not eloquence. It is force."
CLOSING THOUGHTS
The Declaration of Arms said nothing of independence. The Colonies wanted a reform of the English law system from within. Essentially, "We'll put down our guns after you do and listen to us." These actions were not taken lightly. There were several causes that pointed to one necessity. We must learn to articulate our thoughts and practices, even if the are always rejected by the other side. With that in mind, let's go over some commonly-seen talking points.
Leftist: If you want an assault rifle, join the army.
Us: The same army you've always wanted to downsize, underfund and berate for their performance in Afghanistan and Iraq? The same army that's fought for both of our rights, which you are now trying to steal? The same army you claim are a bunch of baby-killers?
Turncoat: You don't need an AR-15 for hunting.
Us: That's irrelevant to the principle of an individual's rights. It doesn't matter what I "need." I am a free man and I will spend my money however I choose, within the law.
Mother of dead child: My son was murdered with a gun.
Us: That was wrong and shouldn't have happened. No amount of laws will bring him back or prevent another murder in the future.
Statist: You fear the government!
Us: Yes I do, because they fear my gun. Every time they talk about guns it's always been about how to take more of them away. Our culture has told us that guns are not necessary for anything. This is because we have not been invaded since 1812, before America had a standing professional army. Switzerland, however, had been invaded multiple times. The government there sees the citizen as a necessity to maintain power. Therefore, they entrust firearms to the people for national defense. The people are not indoctrinated with fantasies of robbing banks or gang wars. They are told stories about how their fathers trained to fight Hapsburg family, Nazis and Communists. In America, the common man is seen as stupid and unhelpful.
Leftist: The 2nd Amendment is outdated and should be repealed.
Us: Just because we've been blessed to go for hundreds of years without a civil war or dictatorship doesn't mean the legislative safeguard is outdated. An attack on one right is an attack against all rights.
Leftist: So what if Hitler/Mao/Pol Pot/Stalin took all the guns? OUR government won't commit genocide.
Us: You haven't been paying attention. It's not the government who will wage genocide in America, it's Americans. For the last 30 years, rich, poor, black, white, Christian, Muslim, red and blue have been stirred against one another by fire-eaters on all sides. Everyone is afraid and angry at everyone else. We are now as polarized and balkanized as Yugoslavia. The left continues to call gun owners "murderers" and "mentally deranged." Some have even gone as far as to say, "too bad all NRA members can't be shot." Again, look at the reporter in NY who published the names of all gun owners in his state. This self-righteous zealot has committed a modern equivalent of lynching on innocent people. If the attack on Benghazi taught me anything, it's that this government will not protect it's own population. Every major riot in our history shows that, from Watts to Rodney King. To further drive the point home, look at the union fiasco in Wisconsin. The police disobeyed orders to clear the capitol building and sided with the protesters. Look at the 2008 election, when those who were not in favor of Obama were attacked by the mobs. America, a nation that hails the systemize slaughter of unborn children, is NOT above genocide on its own people. THAT's why the civilian ownership of military grade weapons is absolutely necessary. Because the last election showed there are enough people in the majority to vote on persecuting the other half.
Leftist: You're insane!
Us: And you're a traitorous Jacobin. We will not compromise on this issue any more. The Republic of the United States was not founded on the idea of collective punishment. The lawful should not have to pay for the actions of a few. We will fight tooth and nail to preserve this single right because factions and forces in this nation have demonstrated they are all too eager to strip us of the others.
Those are my thoughts. I'll leave the final decision to each of you.
Fun fact: AWB is an acronym which stands for Afrikaner Resistance Movement. If you hear someone voice support for an "AWB," ask them, "Why do you want the government creating a white-supremacist group?"
