Is Government Readying For A Shooting War Against Gun Owners?
March 18, 2013 by Bob Livingston
And when one considers that the Department of Homeland Security has contracted for 1.6 billion rounds ofammunition — 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.Gun grabbing lawmakers at both the State and Federal level continue to push forward with their anti-American, anti-2ndAmendment, 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.
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 whenThe 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 2nd 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 2nd 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.