Why do civilians need assault weapons?
By Mark Almonte
“Felons for Gun Control” — Standing+Wolf:
The right to defend oneself is paramount in our society as the article very clearly explains.
That’s an excellent summation, AR1476, but there are two catches: “clearly explains” doesn’t apply to leftist extremists, and our self-proclaimed government protector is far more dangerous than the very worst criminals.
A surprisingly small handful of people are murdered each year by criminals armed with childishly vaguely defined “assault weapons;” by contrast, our entire constitutional republic was destroyed by printing presses and radio and television broadcasting stations and leftist extremists who spent decades taking control of them.
Nothing more terrifying
Mr. Almonte’s article is worthy, indeed; most unfortunately, many of us who read and comment on it could have written it ourselves, and the people who ought to read it are wholly owned by the failed main stream “news” media. They don’t dare venture off the leftist extremist reservation. Nothing is more terrifying to leftist extremists than the open maketplace of ideas.
I find it ironic in a perverse, twisted way the leftists who dearly loved to cry “Pigs! and rail against the largely imaginary “Fascists!” in the 1960s and 1970s are now real fascist-style oligarchs who dare assure us only the police can protect us.
Did they switch sides?
I think not. I believe they subverted the oft-cited “system” from within, took it over bit by piece, and turned it into an immeasurably more racist, oppressive, exploitive “system” than it ever was or even could have been when Johnson and Nixon resided in the White House and the “system” was “in the hands of fat cat military-industrial capitalists,” et cetera. The old “system” was corrupt and indifferent to American law and principles, and arrogantly sent hundreds of thousands of young American men off to Southeast Asia to fight and all too often die in an insanely stupidly mismanaged war. Since then, “progressives” have destroyed our constitutional republic in all but name and replaced it with an oligarchy scarcely distinguishable from the communist party of Viet Nam.
How surprising is any of that? It shouldn’t be at all surprising. Didn’t the Bolsheviks turn out to be almost infinitely more murderous and destructive than the Romanovs and Russian nobility they overthrew? Didn’t China’s communists slaughter thousands of times more people than the “class enemies” they overthrew? I suspect we’re repeating the history we were too lazy and self-centered to trouble ourselves to learn.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Two salient facts
Though so-called “assault weapons” and “gun control” are much in the news these days, I believe two salient facts have received little or no attention, which we’ll soon sorely wish we’d noticed and acted on when we still could:
1.) Both feral and state government so-called “gun control” schemes are first, foremost, and fundamentally exercises in leftist extremist blind hatred of the Second Amendment and all of us to dare assert it means exactly what it says.
2.) The so-called “gun control” leftist extremists so richly enjoy inflicting on us looks increasingly likely to generate and strengthen resistance to leftist extremism.
A thumb nail history of “gun control”
So-called “gun control” in America is older than the United States. It was first enacted as a means to prevent slaves and Indians from possessing firearms. Apart from those two groups, the right of the people to keep and bear arms remained unquestioned until after the Civil War, when the Ku Klux Klan, the terrorist wing of the Democratic [sic] party, went to great lengths to prevent freed slaves from possessing and exercising arms in self-defense.
New York’s infamous Sullivan Act was passed to keep possessing firearms the exclusive prerogative of politically connected criminal gangs and out of the hands of recent immigrants, some of whom were competing gangsters, some of whom were anarchists, socialists, and the like.
“Gun control” schemes in the first two thirds of the twentieth century were supposed to disarm criminal organizations whose very existence was owed to Prohibition, a social engineering scheme beloved of self-styled “progressives.”
“Gun control” received a boost from John Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 and subsequent assassinations of public figures and racial contention. Leftists can’t muster the moral or intellectual courage to admit it, but the public fear that enables “gun control” schemes to seem credible is of young, unmarried, non-white urban males with guns. As often as politicians talk about crime, this is the demographic group both they and voters have in mind, though virtually no one dares say so in plain English. In point of fact, young, unmarried, non-white armed urban males do constitute a highly violent, volatile group that accounts for a hugely disproportionate quantity of violent crime; in further point of fact, the size, persistence, and unchecked predatory behavior of this group are the direct result of leftist extremist so-called “welfare” schemes whose purpose was to turn millions of poor people into boundlessly loyal Democratic [sic] party voters with the nation’s tax dollars. The urban criminal under-class is impervious to “gun control” schemes for two primary reasons:
1.) Criminals break laws.
2.) Without violent crime, leftist extremist politicians would have far less public fear to use as the justification for additional “gun control” schemes.
We, the demonized
Opposition to so-called “gun control” has largely become the province of the oft-cited “gun lobby,” which consists of the National Rifle Association and similar groups whose members are predominantly white, non-urban, patriotic and politically active, tax-paying rather than tax-consuming, and averse to the “progressive” agenda. Opponents of “gun control” have been demonized for decades as “Neanderthals,” “right wing extremists,” “knuckle draggers,” “bitter clingers,” “reactionaries,” “racists,” et cetera ad infinitum.
A new declaration of independence
In both ideological and practical terms, leftist extremists are vehemently opposed to the very idea of self-defense by ordinary citizens, which undermines dependence on the all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful state. It’s no part of a mere coincidence the Democratic [sic] party thrives in poor, violent, poorly educated urban areas with draconian “gun control” laws and narcotics-based gangs that operate with impunity. The “progressive” post-constitutional national government is in the process of declaring its independence from both us, the people and the contraints placed upon it by the Bill of Rights. Ultimately, “progressives” intend to redefine rights as privileges granted or withheld by the state at its convenience and discretion.
The Second Amendment‘s right of the people to keep and bear arms stands squarely in the way of national citizen disarmament such as prevails in Chicago, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and similar Democratic [sic] party strongholds. “Progressives” devoted decades to legalistic ploys to subvert the Second Amendment’s meaning; that having lately failed at the Supreme Court, they’ve recently launched new, exclusively emotional appeals for “gun control” schemes in the wake of several heinous mass murders. No small part of urgency of their motivation is the coast to coast success of the “gun lobby” in passing state concealed carry, shall issue, and constitutional carry laws, all of which are founded on the Second Amendment.
Hatred
Leftist extremist hatred of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is exceeded only by its hatred of people who actually keep and bear arms. If you believe “hatred” may be too strong a word, please let me suggest you reconsider the far left’s demonizing verbiage and accusations, as well as flagrantly dishonest efforts by the “news” media to “frame the narrative” to engender confusion between so-called “assault weapons” and machine guns, besmirch Second Amendment defenders as murderers and advocates of murder, and even accuse us of selling “weapons of war” to Mexican narcotics criminals. Leftist extremist propaganda has been turning more strident and hysterical over the past several decades as the hatred behind it has deepened and turned more caustic.
Blind hatred
Truly intelligent, cunning leftist extremists would have regarded the Second Amendment as an annoying impediment, then resolved to detour around it rather than devote prodigious quantities of time, effort, and emotional energy to expressing hatred of both it and us. They make me think of small children who fall off tricycles and bump their hands and knees, then kick and shriek at their tricycles in rage.
I believe the intensity of “progressives'” hatred has blinded them to what ought to be an obvious fact: they’re turning millions of armed Americans into heavily armed, increasingly distrustful and even hostile enemies. If you’ve got to talk your way into a fight for some strange reason, how wise is it to pick on someone who may well be carrying a gun? Halfway clever bullies pick on little guys, not big guys.
I assume President You Didn’t Build That is counting on his current exercise in anti-Second Amendment bigotry to drum up enthusiasm in his political base; if he were half so shrewd as he’d like everyone to believe, however, he’d have known better than to try to pose as a skeet shooter, and probably ought to be afraid of provoking “bitter clingers” into behaving as violently as leftist extremists have accused us of being. The tough-talking hero of the Chicago way who fired off his mouth about bringing a gun to a knife fight probably would have been well advised to consider the possibility dull-witted “dupes of the gun lobby” might bring real rather than rhetorical guns to literal rather than political fights. A guy who distrusts the honor guard of U.S. Marines who marched in his inauguration parade with bolts removed from their rifles probably ought to be at least as distrustful of the garden variety citizens he’s gone miles out of his way to insult and antagonize. We accept at face value leftist extremists call for civility when they’re losing arguments and trot out incivility when they think they’re winning, but what if so-called “violent right wing rhetoric” were to lead to literal violence? No one, I’m sure, would be more surprised than the leftist extremists themselves.
Are “progressives” trying to provoke violence from us?
Not if they’re even 2% smart, though yes, I believe they could be that oblivious to consequences. Blind hatred never looks very far ahead, and usually misperceives the little it does see.
I’d be extremely surprised if any of us were to go on shooting sprees: in the first place, we’re law-abiding citizens, not gangsters; in the second, we’re armed because we’re sane and rational, not insane and irrational, and ultimately, we’re not dumb enough to play into leftist extremist fantasies.
Rather than inspire loathing and hatred
I believe YDBT’s and the “progressives'” increasingly strident, increasingly openly expressed blind hatred is actually generating, solidifying, and literally arming deep opposition to their plans for post-constitutional America. Hatred begets hatred. They ought to have subverted, or at least circumvented us rather than inspire loathing and hatred in return.
I believe it’s within the realm of possibility leftist extremist blind hatred will create a black market for fully automatic weapons imported by Mexican narcotics cartels. My understanding is small numbers of such weapons have been ending up in urban gangsters’ hands. We law-abiding citizens have disdained the very thought of buying guns from criminals, but that could change under the pressures of hatred and fear.
I believe deepening, broadening, stronger and stronger opposition to leftist extremist “gun control” will work against YDBT and the “progressives” when they feel the time is ripe to unleash a “big enough crisis” as the pretext for the next step in their political agenda. What if they had a crisis, but we makers didn’t react as expected? What if they staged a “big enough” economic disruption, but we didn’t panic? What if they sparked so-called “social unrest,” but it didn’t spread to areas looters and arsonists and rapists are afraid to venture into for fear of encountering armed law-abiding citizens?
We builders and creators and planners and managers have enormous advantages over destroyers. I have a hunch this isn’t the ideal time for “progressives” to telegraph their punches.
Speculation versus fact
Much of that is speculation, of course; by contrast, here’s a granite-solid fact: Marxism, whether it’s called “communism,” “socialism,” “fascism,” “national socialism,” “liberalism,” “progressivism,” or anything else, is always an abysmal failure. It necessarily delivers economic stagnation, poverty, hunger, censorship, sentences to political prisons, intellectual and cultural stagnation, and mass murder. It’s unstable. It’s self-defeating. All too many Marxist tyrants are allowed to die of natural causes, but sooner or later, by one means or a dozen others, leftist tyrannies inevitably collapse.
I’m reasonably sure the sooner and more insanely stupidly the “progressives” embark on their hate-driven final solution for America and us, the American people, the sooner their monstrous ideology and insatiable craving for power will crash, burn, and burn out. The sooner they destroy themselves, the fewer of us they may take with themselves.
Last but not least comes the involvement of Barack Obama’s so-called Justice Department in more than 2,000 gun-related felonies (straw purchases), and Mr. Obama’s personal involvement in what looks a lot like illegal internet gambling to fund his campaign.
Well done again, Mr. Levinson.
If I were a criminal, I wouldn’t waste any more time on bank robbery or credit card fraud than pocketing peppermints in candy stores. I’d relocate to the Washington, D.C. area, find a niche with growth potential and dig and worm my way in, and try to make myself an essential cog in the national extortion operation the “federal” government in name only has degenerated into.
I’m not a criminal, though I admit I’ve had to pay a couple speeding tickets in the past year or so, and keep a close eye on my speedometer and another out for flashing yellow school zone lights.
Oh, by the way, when were drivers from other states demoted to sitting ducks by highway patrol departments? When did cities and counties realize they could double fines by doing nothing grander or more costly or complicated than putting up small signs and yellow warning lights? Out of pure and simple curiosity, what part of the Constitution authorizes states to double fines in so-called “work zones?” The guiding legal principle seems to be: “Whaddaya gonna do, sucker: try an’ fight it in court? Traffic court judges are in for a share of doubled fines, too, ya know.”
If I were a criminal, maybe I’d just grab as much money as I could as fast as I could the same way government at most levels seems determined to do. If I were a superior criminal, a devoted or professional criminal, an evolved criminal, perhaps I’ll pretend, I’d dig and worm my way into the national extortion operation. On second thought, I wouldn’t want to be a mechanical cog, but an operating force deep inside the software. I’d want to see which way the money is flowing, where it rushes and eddies and turns and accelerates and decelerates, and modest amounts of it can be diverted without attracting undue attention. A guy who does arithmetic on this many fingers probably wouldn’t be able to devise and revise a means of rounding pennies up or down and pocket the difference in a nameless bank account in the Caribbean or Lebanon, but I’d come up with something clever and subtle.
“Hey, old timer?” you may well object. “Just how so-called ‘clever and subtle’ are you trying to be at this hour of the morning? Are you double-bagging your strong black tea?”
No. Just the regular, which admittedly probably packs a lighter caffeine wallop than coffee, though I also add nicotine and Famous Amos chocolate chip cookies to the mix. It’s potent enough for a guy my age.
Not to be too clever or subtle, it’s occurred to me the feral “government” extortion operation may already have started to veer out of control. Here are a few peculiar phenomena I’ve noticed lately:
1.) Real extortion schemes are run by organized criminals. They may be, in general, poorly educated thugs at heart, but the more successful don’t keep skilled criminal lawyers on retainer just for the fun of it. Successful extortionists normally keep an eye out for the law, and rarely steal so much they bankrupt their “clients.”
The rule of law is a thing of the past in post-constitutional America, and anyway, the feral government has believed for decades it is the law, so that concern is probably irrelevant, right?
Maybe and maybe not. Government the world over always grants itself an exclusive monopoly on the raw power of force and coercion—except what if gangsterism erupts in the absence of law? The national extortion operation has enough lawyers and prosecutors and self-generated authority to push back if states try to help themselves to too much of the action, but what if independent wannabe competitors show up? What if, in fact, independent new gangs within the feral extortion operation show up?
Does that seem unlikely? All right. I concede there’s no chance the DEA or FBI or BATFE would go rogue. No chance at all. Not in a hundred years. Couldn’t possibly happen.
Now, what if the feral extortion operation steals so much money from its “clients,” they have to close their doors? What if, stranger still, other departments of the feral extortion operation ruin the dollar? Why bother stealing “free” money that suddenly won’t buy anything?
2.) Serious organized criminals stay out of sight and out of mind. They never advertise their “services,” nor let themselves be suckered into public contention or competition they can quietly rig with the assistance of friends high in the Democratic [sic] party and local government, nor go a nineteenth of an umpty-twelveteenth of a metric inch out of their way to antagonize their “client” base and encourage people to band together in opposition to the “arrangment” or “Chicago way” or whatever the scheme is called in any given locale.
Like street corner drug dealers and burglars fresh out on parole and rapists and automobile chop shop operators, organized criminals are foursquare in favor of leftist extremist so-called “gun control.” The difference is organized criminals contribute money to friends high in the Democratic [sic] party, whereas street criminals live in fear of one another and the lower echelons of narcotics gangs.
I suspect there isn’t a criminal in the country who’s glad to see President You Didn’t Build That selling guns and ammunition by the railroad box car. It’s bad enough he’s driven up prices and made ammunition scarcer than gourmet unicorn burgers, but citizens with guns are heavy duty bad dreams for folks in the crime business.
3.) Successful organized criminals rarely do anything flashier than drive around in stretched Cadillac limousines.
It’s probably not too soon to start figuring YDBT and the Democratic [sic] party are going to “win” or “score” so-called “universal background checks” on firearms sales, albeit little or naught else. The RINOs are already making it clear they’ll roll over and play dead part of the distance; by contrast, the NRA and well over four million citizens have made it even clearer there’ll be high holy heck to pay if the RINOs outlaw standard capacity magazines or entire classes of guns or accept an overt Democratic [sic] party registration scheme. Some states are going whole hog berserk with new “gun control” laws, of course, but we’re primarily concerned with the feral government extortion operation.
YDBT will claim victory and bask in glowing accolades from the former “free” press, of course, but at what price? I’m not talking about members of the RINO gang taking seats in the post-constitutional rubber stamp Congress from representatives of the Democratic [sic] gang: Crips versus MS-13 versus Bloods versus the Devil’s Disciples couldn’t possibly matter less to the victims.
I have a hunch YDBT may well be “creating or saving” a rising number of jobs in what I’ll euphemistically call “non-standard” firearms manufacturing and distribution, or “black market” in old-fashioned plain English.
Is the current “gun control” uproar going to evolve into a marketing and sales opportunity for Mexican narcotics cartels? Let me mention in passing, please, organized criminals on the other side of our southern so-called “border” have ready access to competitively priced fully automatic firearms from the world’s foremost military small arms manufacturers and wholesalers. U.S. citizens are currently paying $2,500 and more for semi-automatic AR-15s. Mexican criminals are paying $300 and less for fully automatic AKs.
I don’t have an interest in those or any other rifles: I’m wholly content with my pint-sized revolver, and never was enough of a rifle shot to notice. I’ve just started to wonder how long, especially in the absence of American law, it will take for the laws of supply and demand to kick in.
You can’t count on street gangsters to do a professional crime organization’s job.
SALLY CAN DANCE 