Saturday , 21 October 2017
Home » Blog » Gun Talk » Just how close are we?

Just how close are we?

It seems to me that every time some Government official comes forward with a brand-spankin new plan that’s going to “fix all of our problems” and ensure that ‘mass shootings never happen again’ it’s always at the expense of someone who already has no inclination of breaking the law…or, to put it in better words:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”  ~Cesare Beccaria

And any time this happens, there’s always a group of folks (I count myself among this group) who come forward and remind everyone exactly where this is heading:  Total, outright bans.  Each time this is broached, it seems like a bunch of people roll their eyes, shake their heads, and walk away.  But why?  Because they said they’re not going to?  They said it’s only going to apply to “this” gun or “that” rifle?  Because they said that “nobody wants YOUR guns, we just want them out of the hands of crazy people”.  Well, hey, I agree!  I don’t want someone who is out of their mind to have access to a firearm – what so ever…but these ideals being proposed to “fix” that problem are not, in any way shape or form, fixing the problem!

The only problem they are fixing is patching the bruised ego of a few politically minded people who have never been told “No” up to this point.  A few people, like our President, who have gone their entire lives, issuing commands, and having them executed immediately.  People who get what they want.  But now – they’ve encountered something they can’t have, and it angers them.  You can hear this in their voices as they quiver in frustration, talking about it.  You can see it in their posture as they appear on the TV, talking about how we need “Common Sense” gun laws to keep someone getting their hands on a gun when they shouldn’t be allowed.

But then, we’re drug back to people like me who are saying “Why aren’t you listening?  We want the same thing, but what you’re proposing is going to take away MY rights, too!” and each time we do, the eyes are rolled, the heads shake, and people walk away, without listening.

This was obvious from one of my latest Facebook Posts, linking to this article, talking about what appears to be the first move in the Obama Administration’s order to disarm 4,000,000 social security recipients based on nothing other than the fact that they delegate the handling of their financial affairs to a third party (relative, accountant, etc).  That’s it.  They were not necessarily adjudicated mentally unfit.  They were not necessarily found to be mentally insane or dangerous to anyone, including themselves.  Sure, some may have been, but that’s not the criteria being examined, it’s one simple check box, and if your paperwork has it checked, you lose your 2nd Amendment Freedom.

No trial.  No due process.  No mental health evaluation…

Your rights are officially forfeited in a manner not in line with the laws of our Country.  And, yet, still the eyes roll.  Even from pro-gun people that I know personally.  Some people claim to have read into the information, including the links contained within, and still, some how, arrived at the conclusion that “You’re just being paranoid”…well let’s break this down, shall we?:

  • The Obama Administration issues an order to the Social Security Administration to begin submitting documents to the Federal NICS database of all SSA beneficiaries who are documented as having a “representative payee” as being mentally unfit to carry/possess a firearm.
  • The Social Security Administration complies and, in secret, begins submitting some 4,000,000 records to NICS who fall within this category
  • These people are not necessarily “insane”.  There are a laundry list of reasons that someone may have a representative payee assigned to handle their financial affairs, the majority of them not rendering someone incapable of possessing a firearm.
  • These 4,000,000 otherwise law abiding citizens have undergone no due process.  These records were submitted arbitrarily.
  • Anyone with a ‘representative payee’ on their documents is immediately flagged in NICS as not being allowed to own a firearm.  This does not meant hey were adjudicated mentally unfit.  It does not mean they went to trial.  It simply means they entrust someone else to handle their bills.  That’s it.  It’s not debatable.  It’s a certifiable fact.
  • The VA finds that the man in Idaho (referenced in the article above) does not handle his own financial affairs and, at their own admission, sends him a letter stating he cannot be in possession of a firearm.  The VA responds by saying that they do not have the Authority to confiscate firearms, which is true, but they conveniently leave out of their official response the fact that they have been using the FBI for their confiscation muscle

So, with no effort what so ever, the United States Government was able to circumvent the Due Process clause of our Constitution to arbitrarily strip an otherwise Law Abiding Citizen of his 2nd Amendment Rights simply because he asked that his wife be labeled his representative payee.  That’s it.  Nobody can logically refute that.  It’s…easily proven.  Yet, many people have tried…even pro-gun people. I had the privilege of arguing with some of these doubters and disbelievers, and what I saw happening most was comments claiming “bullshit!” by people who, at their own admission never even read the information provided.

And this reaction is not unique to this situation.  I’m sure most of you can associate with my next example:  Think back to the years of 2008 – 2011.  Remember how many times we were told we were crazy?  Remember how many times we were told that “Obama isn’t coming for your guns, he’s actually very pro-gun” … and yet, some of us stuck to our guns, insisting on what we believed to be the inevitable shit storm.  And that shit storm arrived, shortly after his re-election, at the first tragedy he could exploit, when a psychopath who should never have been allowed to be mingle in society, murdered his mother, in her sleep.  He then stole her legally owned firearms and drove to a gun-free zone and murdered 26 innocent people.

Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm, Mmm, Mmm) laid dormant for a few days, to allow some time to pass, and then he came out of his bunker, guns a-blazin’.  He wasn’t offering an idea for how we keep mentally insane people from getting a gun.  He wasn’t offering a way to keep children safe while they’re in a gun-free zone.  Nope.  He was offering a solution to a problem that didn’t exist:  He was demanding we ban a vaguely defined set of firearms that he, and his cohorts, affectionately refer to as ‘assault weapons’ and he was demanding we ban them now – and we should be ashamed if we didn’t move immediately to do so.  He presented statistics that are easily proven to be 100% false.  He used rhetoric that would make any Statist proud.  He wasn’t interested in saving lives.  He was interested in banning guns.  Something he was told he couldn’t do…he was interested in proving us wrong.

And he’ll do whatever he can to prove it.  I’ll be the first to say that I don’t believe Obama is “coming after our guns” so that he can “rule over us like a cruel dictator”.  No.  I truly don’t believe that.  I do believe he wants your guns banned.  I do believe he doesn’t believe you should have a right to own them, and will do what he can to ensure that right is abolished…but I believe his reasons for feeling that way are simple:  He was told he’s not allowed to.  He’s made allusions to that pesky Constitution before, and just how tiresome it can be as it stands in the way of his ambitions:

If this isn’t convincing you, just yet, then please follow me as I continue along. We have other instances of our Government attempting to reach farther than what the Constitution allows. Lets take a look at H.R.2401 – No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009.  The summary of the bill is worded such that, I believe, most Americans would read and go “Well, yeah, who wouldn’t want that?”…it reads:

To increase public safety and reduce the threat to domestic security by including persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes

But hold on a second…what is the no fly list?  Is it as transparent as many politicians suggest?  Are there only terrorists and dangerous people on it?  People like Cat Stevens might disagree.  The “No Fly List” was created by the Bush Administration and has been resigned back into law, every year, by the Obama Administration.  Who determines who goes on this ‘no fly list’?  Well, the Government, of course.  And they do not have to divulge their process.  In fact, until 2010, when the pro-rights-except-the-2nd group, ACLU, sued the United States Government and won, the Government its self was allowed to remain secretive about the challenging process, leaving many otherwise law abiding citizens clueless with how to regain their rights in the country they grew up in.

So, the Government creates a list of people that it can determine, without due process, who goes on it, and then comes forth with a piece of legislation that says “You can’t own a gun if you’re on this list”.  Well, that’s not due process.  That, just like the Social Security Administration loophole, is circumventing the Constitution and infringing on the 2nd Amendment Rights of someone how has been found guilty of NO CRIME…and yet, the eyes roll.  The heads shake, and people walk away.

Thankfully, there were enough pro-gun people, at the time, to fight against the legislation, making it public, and it was squashed.  For now.  But think about what could have happened if nobody had found out about it.  Legislation gets passed into law all the time, under the veil of secrecy…lets not forget the notorious “Pass it so we can find out whats in it” load of B.S.  If the “No Fly No Buy” act had been allowed to pass in to law, then the Government could simply name you to the “no fly” list, give you no reason why (they are not legally required to do so) and, poof, your right to own/possess/buy a firearm is gone.  Nothing you can do about it.  Just gone.

And, my last little example here is something more local to Illinoisians…and a little more recent.  Remember when the US Appeals Court upheld the Assault Weapons Ban in Highland Park?  Do you remember what their reasoning was?  Let me help you with a reminder:

“If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,”

Absolutely dangerous language.  Lets break it down:

If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting. 

Who is defining the perception of risk?  According to the US Government, the risk of being a victim of a mass shooting is already incredibly low – in fact, if you look at FBI Crime Data, you’re actually much more likely to be murdered with a baseball bat, knife, or someone’s fists, than you are something like an AR-15.

And makes the public feel safer as a result

Feel safer?  Are you #$@%ing kidding me?  The illusion of safety trumps a right?  They don’t say “make safer” because there simply is no data, what so ever, that can even remotely be misused to argue such a point.  I’m simply seething at this point.

That’s a substantial benefit

To who?  The 314,999,965 people who weren’t killed with an AR-15 last year?  How is that a benefit to them?  If you were interested in providing them a benefit, how about you resign from office and move to a country more deserving of your abject stupidity?

 

In the end, we have all the examples we need to show that we have people in the Government who will stop at nothing to get their way.  Not because they want to murder you.  Not because they want to rule over you.  But simply because they want to say “I told you so”.  They have something to prove, and your guns (and mine) are the object of that conquest.  They will stop at nothing, and so, we must stop at nothing to expose every attempt and fight it.  If it weren’t’ for people trying to do such a thing, the No Fly No Buy bill would have passed in the dead of night, into law, making it next to impossible to repeal.  If we all simply rolled our eyes at the idea, shook our heads at the notion, and walked away, to go back to the TV to see who is on the next episode of “Dancing with the Stars”, then the next piece of legislation would pass us by, hindering our rights, bit by bit, and we’d be none the wiser until it was too late.

Stand up now.  Speak out now.  Stop acting like this isn’t a struggle that you’re a part of.  Just because you might not be a Navy Veteran whose Social Security status is defined as unfit to possess a firearm, doesn’t mean you won’t be defined as such under a different set of arbitrary bullshit tomorrow.  I leave you with the following, from Martin Niemöller , and pray to God you let it sink in:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

About Brandon P

I believe you can learn all you'd ever need to know about a person by listening to how they describe an individuals freedom to protect themselves. I'm politically incorrect (and proud of it) and when it comes to gun rights for law abiding citizens, I am NEVER neutral!

Check Also

All I want for Christmas is…

Oh, Christmas time!  A time for family…and breaking your back shoveling snow (seriously, why do …

Leave a Reply