Is Government Readying For A Shooting War
By Bob Livingston / Personal Liberty Digest
PHOTOS.COM
Gun grabbing lawmakers at both the State and Federal level continue to push forward with their anti-American, anti-2
nd
Amendment, anti-gun agendas, even as more individuals, State
legislatures and manufacturers of weapons, weapons accessories and
ammunition push back. It almost seems as if the elected class is itching
for a fight.
And when one considers that the Department of Homeland Security has contracted for 1.6 billion rounds of
ammunition — much of it hollow points or for use in sniper rifles — for its 55,000 armed
agents,
plus 2,717 armored personnel carriers and 7,000 select fire “personal
defense weapons,” it seems even more apparent that’s the goal. For
perspective, 1.6 billion rounds is enough to fight the Iraq war for 20
years. It’s enough to shoot every American five times. It’s
28,000 tons,
or the equivalent of three guided missile destroyers. It’s almost
30,000 target practice rounds per armed agent — but of course, because
they are more expensive, hollow points are not used for target practice.
These purchases have long concerned many of those who pay attention.
But only the alternative media talked about it — to derision and
catcalls — until Feb. 15. That’s when
The Denver Post ran an article by
The Associated Press about the purchases. That prompted a column by Ralph Benko at
Forbes.com in which he said it’s time for a national conversation about the purchases.
More than that, it’s time for a national conversation on the link
between the purchases and the ongoing push by the elected class to
collapse the economy and pass legislation against the will of the
people.
Recall that Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.),
speaking for the state,
informed us that, “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the
state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to
have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban bill passed out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee on Thursday on a partisan 10-8 vote. The bill’s
primary sponsor, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) — who has said she’d
like to see all guns removed from the hands of Americans — knows “the
road is uphill” for the legislation’s
passage.
If that’s the case, then why pass it if not just to poke in the eye a
significant portion of the American population already upset over the
anti-gun rhetoric and attacks on lawful gun owners by the gun grabbers?
But while the ban on so-called “assault weapons” is more than likely
to fail, it’s not unlikely that Republicans who want to go along to get
along will glom on to legislation requiring universal background
checks, which passed out of the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Universal background checks are the camel’s nose under the tent. As
former Attorney General Janet Reno said in 1993 during discussions of
the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB): “Waiting periods are only a step.
Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the
goal.” Remember that the elites are content with incremental steps that I
call gradualism.
Remember also that gun control is not a partisan issue, although it
appears so now and conventional wisdom says so. Prominent Republicans
(including much of the field for the last GOP Presidential nomination),
in a bid to appear “reasonable” to the establishment crowd, have
supported various measures that restricted gun ownership. The last GOP
standard-bearer, Mitt Romney, said he would have signed the 1994 AWB if
it came to his desk. If he were President today, a gun bill would be
more than likely to pass because he would provide cover for statist
Republicans to go along with a gun ban — as George W. Bush provided
cover for Republicans to support anti-liberty measures like expanding
Medicare and passing No Child Left Behind and other government-growing
legislation.
President Richard Nixon,
in a taped conversation with aides, said: “I don’t know why any
individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house. The kids
usually kill themselves with it and so forth.”
He asked why “can’t we
go after handguns, period? I know the rifle association will be against
it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have
handguns.”
Even more insidious — and likely more harmful to gun rights — are the
States that are passing anti-gun measures against the will of the
people. New York rammed through legislation banning weapons and
large-capacity magazines, violating its own procedures in the process.
Since then, 52 of New York’s 62 counties have introduced legislation
calling for the repeal of the New York State Secure Ammunition and
Firearms Enforcement Act. The legislation has passed in 40 of them.
Colorado has passed bans on magazine capacity, and a bill that would
require background checks is close to passage. Governor John
Hickenlooper has said he will sign the bills despite threats by gun
supply manufacturers to pull out of the State if he does.
Sheriffs, other law enforcement agents, some groups and many
individuals are vowing to resist gun-confiscation efforts. Twenty-eight
States have introduced or passed bills to preserve the 2
nd Amendment. Fourteen have introduced or passed Firearms Freedom Acts.
Manufacturers of guns, gun accessories and ammunition have put their financial health on the line by
refusing to sell to State and local governments that pass restrictions on gun ownership by individuals. That list is at 136 and growing.
And the Outdoor Channel, a popular cable channel for outdoors
enthusiasts, hunters, fishermen and shooters, has told Colorado it will
pull its production out of Colorado if gun control measures are signed into law.
If gun grabbers thought the Sandy Hook shooting would cause Americans to stand passively by and allow their 2
nd
Amendment rights to be snatched away, they have learned differently.
The question now is: How far is government willing to go now that it’s
getting push-back?
President John F. Kennedy once said, “Today, we need a nation of
Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens
who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their
daily life.”
It appears those people are stepping up.