Saturday, January 12, 2013

"Gun Control" is Violence...

...and promises of "gun control" are threats of violence.  Behind every gun control advocate's argument is a desire to harm millions for the supposed goal of saving hundreds.  The ones that know this have a hidden agenda that they dare not share for it will expose their evil nature.

I put "gun control" in quotes because the end-game isn't reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership but rather an all-out prohibition or disarmament.  Liberals have made this perfectly clear in places in Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, etc... where they use taxpayer dollars to prohibit taxpayers from utilizing their sacred, Second Amendment protected, right to keep and bear arms.  A right that has been re-affirmed by every high court that has ruled on the matter including the recent Heller case.

In spite of promises that disarmament will prevent violence, here are the reasons the exact opposite is true...

Violent Crime

As mountains of data illustrate, higher rates of citizen gun ownership correlate to lower rates of violent crimes against persons.  The inverse is also true:  the "gun free" Liberal utopias of our nation are also the violent crime capitals.  The reason for this correlation is that citizen gun ownership has a deterrent effect on crime.  A would be criminal must take a high level of risk to violate a person in a community with high rates of gun ownership.

Criminals in a Liberal utopia have no such risks.  There is also no fear in getting caught committing a crime, after the fact, as Liberals have also neutered our criminal justice system.  We no longer punish criminals, we "rehabilitate" them, release them, and allow them to harm others.

Since gun ownership is proven to be an effective deterrent on crime, prohibiting gun ownership actually encourages crime.  This is how disarmament makes the government a willing partner in violent crime against Americans.

A great example is the situation in Southern California that occurred on Friday.  There are countless other examples that share the same characteristics; evil and violent criminals who have their way because the government has disarmed the people.  In California it was stabbing and sexual assault.  The criminal may have done the raping in this case, but the state of California held those victims down by prohibiting them from exercising their natural right to carry a weapon.

This latest example from California also demonstrates that the police are not an effective deterrent against crime and never will be.  LAPD got the 911 call at 11:00PM on Thursday.  The situation was over around 2:00AM on Friday.  That left the criminals three hours to terrorize, rape, and stab people inside the store!!!  And as a final insult to those victims, LAPD failed to apprehend a single criminal.

It doesn't matter how many police officers we have or many other rights we give up to form a police state.  The police will never be able to eliminate crime.  The only effective solution is our God-given natural right to defend ourselves with a firearm.  If the government prohibits the people from practicing this right, they are inflicting violence upon us.

A Government Monopoly on Violence
The concept of a government ‘monopoly on force’ may sound inconsistent with the political traditions of a country steeped in stories of its own revolution, but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any nation-state.” – Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Mr. Horwitz's words defy the lessons of the 20th century where humanity witnessed millions of murders (genocide) by government that maintained a monopoly on force--which is actually a monopoly on violence.  In each case, the citizen was disarmed not by persuasion or gentle coercion but threats of violence.  Stalin made firearm ownership in Russia a capital offense.  After disarmament, there is no way for the People to defend themselves from the inevitable tyranny and/or genocide. 

Is this an "organizing principle" Mr.  Horwitz?!?

Or...  Liberals like Horwitz actually view genocide as a requirement for organizing a nation-state and individual firearm ownership gets in the way of those plans.  Many Obama staffers, czars, advisors, and friends have document their genocidal fantasies.  From Bill Ayers to Anita Dunn to John Holdren and the affiliation of far Left groups that won Obama re-election.  Just this month Liberals suggested NRA members be shot.  What's more tyrannical than shooting a person for his beliefs and associations?

Also consider the concept of a nation-state, as Horwitz says, is a far left one in which a country surrenders its sovereignty for membership in a greater order.  That is not what we are and any attempts to get the United States to surrender her sovereignty by fiat would surely be met with resistance by the People.

On this topic it is clear to see why Liberals are going after "assault" rifles and "high" capacity magazines in spite of the relatively low numbers of murders committed with those weapons (323 deaths in 2011 by rifles).  These "assault" rifle weapon systems would be our first line of defense against such a tyranny because those are the weapons that are used to balance the government's power as required by the Second Amendment.  There is no point in forming a citizen militia without the benefit of modern weapons that are capable against a foreign or domestic enemy.

Every time a Liberals asks "why exactly do you need an assault rifle or a high capacity magazine?" the immediate response should be "to deny government a monopoly on violence that has needlessly murdered millions of innocent people throughout history."

Consider the Timing and the Source

I have demonstrated how disarmament efforts are in fact violence, but that is only one piece of what is happening now.

We are in the middle of an economic crisis, the likes which this nation has never known.  The signs of this are visible in daily life and the economic data.  We were promised recovery three years ago but we have done nothing but slide further into the abyss with government recklessly destroying the resources we need to recover in the private economy.

That government will resist spending cuts (austerity) as the consequences would likely cause mass rioting and social unrest--not to mention Democrats depend on social programs to buy votes and win elections.  The only option is to slowly inflate the US dollar and get as much mileage as on existing wealth as possible.  The resistance to this plan is met in each "debt ceiling" debate where one side shows zero willingness to live within our means and the other cedes more wealth from citizens.  President Obama is now contemplating a $1T platinum coin to bypass Congress, violating the Constitution, so the inflation scheme can continue unabated, without debate or notice.

When this plan reaches critical mass there will be systemic economic collapse in a country that no longer produces enough food or resources to feed and care for her people--resource scarcity.  It isn't hard to see how the government will respond; forced labor/production, re-allocation of resources, and ultimately marshal law in a full-blown police state.  As further evidence of their plans examine the militarization of law enforcement and the ramp-up of personnel and equipment within the Federal alphabet agencies--this is happening for a reason and the same has happened throughout history countless times.

Liberals have already announced they intend to replace the "rich" in our economy (except for themselves, families, and friends of course).  But they cannot replace the working class who will be desperately needed and they cannot allow those working class individuals to withhold their labor or their precious nation-state will fall apart.  They have also sent notice that they intend to scrap the Constitution or at least repeal the 22nd Amendment making Barack Obama king.

The same people who would want to respond this way to crisis are the same ones advocating disarmament.  They know the future because they have all the information along with the most intelligent people available to tell them the future.  They know that individual firearm ownership must be prohibited for these plans to take shape.

What we should know is that if we let them disarm us to be viewed as "reasonable" by the likes of Piers Morgan, there is no stopping them at a future date when they become unreasonable.

No comments: