Statistics
Jan
25
Re: Comments on H.R. 45-take it to the limits of political action
January 25, 2009 | Tagged anti-gun Democrats, Evils of Prohibition, Fabian Socialism, H.R. 45 | Leave a Comment
It is clear from the comments regarding my recent post on H.R. 45 that many law abiding American Citizens are deeply concerned about the implications of this draconian measure. (Category: “Legislation.”) I am going to encourage everyone who owns a firearm or loves liberty to get politically active now. If you have done a little in the past to defend the Second Amendment, please do more. If you have done a lot, please push yourself harder. If you have done nothing, as must be the case with many of the 80-90 million American gun owners, please do something!
Our opponents, those that believe that “common citizens” should be herded like cattle at the whim of rich and powerful philosopher king “intellectuals,” believe that they can divide us. They believe that the “one slice at a time” Fabian Socialist ploy will cause us to falter. They believe that coming in “under the radar” with incremental attacks on handgun and semi-autos will lull other gun owners into complacency and submission.
They believe that talking about support of the Second Amendment is enough to lull us to sleep, while they push for gun bans, registration schemes, and plots to keep young people from entering the shooting sports. They believe that “Smart Guns,” and “Ammunition Accountability” can drive up the price and limit the availability of firearms and bullets to the point that the American Gun Culture will dry up and blow away.
Make no mistake about it. There is a threat. As Walt Whitman wrote, “There is no week nor day nor hour, when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance-Tyranny may always enter-there is no charm, no bar against it-the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.” (I might add here, and, a large resolute group of women.) (Bartlett, John, Familiar Quotations, Fourteenth Edition, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston-Toronto, 1968, page 703 b.)
But, what exactly are we fighting for? Certainly we want to stop the possible rise of tyranny, the killing fields, the boxcars rolling to Dachau, or the casual lawlessness and murder of the Mafia, or Mexican and Columbian drug gangs. I believe we are also fighting politically to preserve the miracle of American Republican Democracy and to keep this country from descending into the nightmare of a civil war or a protracted insurgency like the one that has rent Northern Ireland for generations. (See my post, “Non-violence a non-starter as counter to established modern tyranny,” 09-08-08, Category: “Official Misconduct.”)
We want to prevent lawlessness, gang violence, and widespread public disregard for law and order such as that brought about by Prohibition, America’s greatest flirtation with heavy-handed government control. We want to save America from the spectre of the Terror of the French Revolution, or the slaughter of brother by brother of our own Civil War.
We seek to preserve by any available political means those freedoms, which would at the last ditch, have to be preserved by force, in the event of the failure of all other remedies. We seek to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States, as all our political leaders and military personnel are sworn to do. (May they always be mindful of their duty!)
Jeff Knox has written two thoughtful posts regarding some of the issues involved in our quest to maintain the liberties recognized by the founders of this nation. “Mutual Assured Destruction, The power is in the threat, not the execution” and “Where’s Your Line? It’s hard to draw in shifting sand,” should serve as cautionary essays for everyone involved in the debate about the rights of Americans to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.
Is there a risk in standing up for freedom? You know there is. Will you be held up to ridicule as a “desperate, clingy” gun owner with one tooth, a dirty flannel shirt, an “assault weapon,” an alcohol problem, and a psychotic drive to slaughter Bambi? They have already stereotyped you. Is there a risk that political speech that should be protected by the First Amendment will result in discrimination, persecution, and possible unfair prosecution? You never know. Is it safer now to pretend that “they” don’t know who you are? I don’t think so. (See my post, “Believe me! They know who you are,” 11-18-08, under the Category: ” benefits of guns.”
Winston Churchill wrote, “If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
We owe it to ourselves, our families, our ancestors, and hopefully, our descendants, to do everything we can within the political framework created by the Founders to preserve that framework, which is the Constitution of the United States, especially the Second Amendment. Let it never be said that we failed as citizens, patriots, and lovers of freedom to do everything possible to prevent tragedy for our country. We never want to reach another sunrise, such as the one thrust upon another great American, Chief Crazy Horse, when he was forced by broken treaties and the murder of his friend, Conquering Bear, to say, “It is a good day to fight. It is a good day to die.”
Let us rather emulate Churchill and the Greek, Thucydides, who said, “The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage.” Let us now demonstrate political courage and resolve in the face of challenges to our liberty.
Def Mech