Second Amendment Rant

The Second Amendment Never Gets Old

A little over forty years ago on a show called All in the Family, Archie Bunker (Carroll O'Connor) was arguing with his television daughter, Gloria Bunker-Stivic (Sally Struthers) about gun control. Gloria asks Archie if he is aware that sixty-five percent of homicides committed in the last ten years were by handguns, to which Archie retorts, "Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?" Video can be seen here.

Now, aside from producer Norman Lear's obvious Liberal bent, the line was a good one, no matter how stupid the show tried to make Archie appear. And apparently, the left in this country still feel the same way, to which I would ask, "Would you feel better if George Zimmerman died instead of Travon Martin, by having his head crushed against the sidewalk"?

It seems that leftists like Piers Morgan and Jeff Daniels would indeed feel better so long as a gun was not involved. Daniels appeared on Morgan's show the other day, and said that a gun was responsible for the tragedy of Martin's death, and astoundingly stated that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was, to paraphrase, from a "different time". So what has changed in your opinion, Jeff?

Is our government so trustworthy today that we can toss our guns in a heap and expect that we will be protected? Protected from whom, I would ask, because our government today is more frightening than the "alleged" criminals wandering around, and they are buying billions of rounds of ammunition almost daily. Once our guns are taken away, do you, Jeff, feel like you will be protected, and by whom? The people with the power and the guns?

For anyone out there who feels secure in what their government is doing these days, I both pity and fear you, for you are the people who help facilitate the end of liberty in America and a full fledged police state just like we feared as children. The government doesn't even have our guns yet, and they are behaving like tyrants, using the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) to restrict our activities. What would happen if a citizen refused to follow the edicts of either of these bureaus?

Someone like Jeff Daniels would most likely wave a dismissive hand at these questions, with a smirk, and say something like, "Don't be silly, that ain't gonna happen in America." That's what leftists do. I won't bother with the "Guns don't kill people" or the "When guns are outlawed" memes, they are useless anyway, though no less true. But it must be noticed that the one thing, beyond honor -- which has long left our Capitol -- that has kept us free is our guns.

If they are ever taken away -- at whatever cost to our lives and our society -- we will have succumbed to the same fate as countries we have only read about in our history books, back when those books carried true history. This is what I fear for my children and grandchildren. This is what I fear from my government, a government I did not fear as a child, when things were a bit more sane, or at least seemed to be.

Forgive me for getting a little bit antsy when celebrities start spouting off about our Constitution, and blithely suggesting that this or that amendment is expired. In our world today, celebrities are the teachers of our culture, for our young pay more attention to them than they do our school teachers. If Jeff Daniels wants to give a message to our children, perhaps he should tell them not to shoot anybody unless their lives are in danger, but also to tell them that gun safety is a responsibility they should take seriously.

Not that their rights as Americans are outdated.

Sphere: Related Content

The Genesis of Tyranny

The Obvious is Now Ignored

Those clever bastards! Eight years of the MoveOn.org's of the world crying wolf over George W. Bush's non-existent nefarious motives served a diabolical purpose after all.

When President Bush XLIII implemented the Department of Homeland Security, the left went apoplectic, sporting posters of Bush as Hitler and drawing comparisons to Germany's own Homeland Security program. "Warrantless wiretaps" only added to the hysteria, and we were being lead to believe that Bush and VP Dick Cheney were prepared to take over the world.

These attacks were, of course, dismissed by those of us who knew better, but our own defenses against the accusations have now come back to haunt us, and it is by design, for it doesn't have to be the same boy who cries wolf once too often. Liberal organizations began sounding the false alarm early, and now they stand with the crowd shouting at the new boy to stop the charade and go about his business. Nothing to see here, folks. Nothing, that is, except the approaching wolf which is now ignored.

It was Obama who said in his first campaign for president that we couldn't rely on our military alone and that we need a "civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Today, does anyone actually know if that goal is accomplished, or how close to completion it may be? Perhaps not, but there are plenty of other signs that point to a bad ending for the American people, if they would only open their eyes and ears.

While it certainly wasn't Obama who opened our borders, he hasn't hastened to close them, either. Perhaps taking the advice of his former adviser Rahm Emmanuel -- who's credo is never let a crisis go to waste -- Obama now sees a portion of the 11 million illegal immigrants as pawns who could comprise part of his civilian army? I can't say for sure, but it's worth the speculation in light of his insistence that they be given a path to citizenship, with a possible "public service" clause as part of that path.

What are they looking for here?

We have UAV's (unmanned drones) patrolling our domestic skies now, some under the guise of "law enforcement" and some deployed as Homeland Security (DHS) efforts. With this in mind, remember that the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, recently said when questioned on the subject that he would "have to check" if President Obama had the right to kill American citizens at will on American soil. One would think the answer would be obvious, but Mueller needs to check. Does this confusion have to do with whether the issue is terrorist related, and if so, who does our Islam-loving president consider as "terrorists"? Consider that the DHS has already cautioned against "right-wing domestic terrorism".

In recent months, our government has been conducting military-style exercises in various American cities, frightening the inhabitants of those cities. Miami, Los Angeles and Houston have seen these drills, and no one was ever notified beforehand about them. Why does our government need to practice their craft in our own cities with no warning to the residents? Is it because they want to see how the people will react? Is it to desensitize the people to the presence of such activities?

Perhaps the most perplexing question is why DHS has already purchased 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point bullets, or why they now have a requisition in for 7,000 assault weapons. As some have already asked, whom do they intend to shoot? Apparently no one, just as yet.

Tyranny works best for the tyrant who can easily line up his citizens prior to shooting them. It's less messy and safer for the tyrant and his minions. When people beginning shooting back, it's just not nearly as much fun. Here's where the Second Amendment becomes a hindrance, and our government is making no secret about its disdain for it.

With all of these events already unfolding in America, no one should need to heed the boy shouting his warnings; the wolf should be plain for all to see.

Sphere: Related Content

Our Stealth Government on the March

Do you want to see this become
common? 

The entire 2013 version of gun control debate has centered on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as is proper, but the interpretations of it have been polluted by the left throughout. Our ever guileful government has seen to that, and for nefarious reasons.

The very intent of our Founders in writing the Second Amendment -- especially in light of the recent Revolution -- was for the people to protect themselves from ever needing a second revolution. It was designed specifically for we the people to guard against the future tyranny of our own government. And yet here we stand, 237 years later, struggling to retain those that were once considered to be "inalienable rights".

Just as this administration did in Benghazi, they obfuscate the true motives of the aggressor to confuse the issue on "gun control". In Benghazi the Administration insisted for days -- after the truth was already known -- that the attack on our Embassy compound was because of a YouTube video that Muslims found offensive. (The film maker is still in a U.S. prison). The offensive film was never widely viewed by the Benghazi attackers.

Now the Administration and other Democrat politicians have taken the Sandy Hook shooting for their personal cause to champion using the same obfuscation tactics. They have managed to change the narrative of the story to suggest that assault weapons and large capacity magazines were the primary methods of murder. Further, the talking heads have convinced a large portion of the population that the Second Amendment is really about hunting. Neither notion is true.

What should come as no surprise, in actuality, is that now Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation to ban certain guns and ammunition will not apply to government officials. I would point out that the scope of "government officials" is quite broad. And that broad definition has already purchased 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point bullets, some which can penetrated concrete walls. Now they want to take guns away from the citizens. Is anyone seeing a pattern here?

Our government provided millions of guns to Mexican drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious. They are now planning to supply Egypt with F-16 fighter jets and Abrams Tanks. Rumor has it that the operation in Benghazi was a covert plan to supply rebels with guns, a plan gone horribly awry. And they want our guns.

If this article frightens anyone, I will not apologize, I will celebrate, because people should be afraid. If fear makes people sit up and pay attention to what's going on around them, I consider that mission accomplished. The only reason government officials don't come kicking in our doors already is because they never know which house is armed, nor how heavily they might be.

Without our guns, we will be at the mercy of our government as well as all the criminals who -- as demonstrated by their very nature -- have no intention of following any law that says they can't have guns. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have long ago proved their disdain for the American people by forcing through Obamacare by any means necessary, despite our objections.

If we are left completely unarmed, what chance do you think we'll have then?

Sphere: Related Content