‘Now is the Time’

This is the the President’s “plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence”. This “plan” is what spawned the 23 executive orders on Jan 16, 2013. This has also been called the most comprehensive gun control legislation passed since 1968, eclipsing the “assault weapon ban” so often referred to now that was signed into law in the 1994 under Bill Clinton.



 If we remember anything politically speaking about 1968 it would have to be the assassinations of Dr Martin Luther King & Robert Kennedy. The tightest gun control ever to that point was introduced before the deaths of both men but was quickly fast-tracked and passed after their murders. Reading a piece written about 1968 this week in regards to gun control reminded me of something I read in 2008 from then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel who was “advising” the newly elected President on crisis management:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

As the President walked up on the stage this week and signed his executive orders into place all I could think about was at what ends will this lead to? Actually, it wasn’t soon after that initial thought before I came to the conclusion of not “what” ends, but “when” those ends will come. When will we see the end of the legal ownership of any firearm?

 The right to own guns keeps man free. Free from the state or free from foreign invaders. It says so right in the 2nd Amendment. I would find this humorous if it wasn’t so damn offensive.

 The state piles up guns and then turns them on you and forces you to do as they say or they punish you with the threat of taking away your freedom which infringes on your liberty and pursuit of happiness. Seems like a conflict of interest regarding rights, no? Then, the state, despite all the guns and all the money, also does a piss poor job of keeping foreign invaders out of the country. From “terrorists” to illegal aliens the borders remain wide open.

 If that wasn’t enough of a kick in the groin, the state also looks down upon militias, essentially blowing the 2nd amendment out of the water on those grounds alone. The part about “a well regulated militia” isn’t time sensitive, regardless what anyone wants to say otherwise. There is no expiration on the meaning of the amendment, constitutional scholars be damned. These examples and the latest push executive order(s) are all attacks on not only our right to own firearms but it’s also an affront on our collective common sense.

 When it comes to bureaucrats and the 2nd amendment there seems to be a major disconnect. The 2nd amendment is pretty direct, it’s pretty plain English. Thus, there is no reason to “read into” anything. Yet the federal government shows no respect for something so straightforward. Is this a coincidence? Not a chance.  

 Semantics, are some of the firsts arrow pulled out of the quiver of control. Using wordplay and rearranging definitions to justify the means to an end – that is the ultimate goal of those in power. They also use situations and crisis to manipulate the public trading in freedom for security. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Bush did it, Clinton before him etc etc… this isn’t something new but I find it pretty interesting for a president who promised “transparency”. Who ran on “change”. It is what it is. Call it Machiavellian or call it just being a politician. Whatever the definition you  come up, see it for what it is.

 The executive orders signed into place this week are centered on ‘assault rifles’. Now, ask anyone for a definition of what an assault rifle is and you are sure to get something different from everyone. So, what happens when banning ‘assault rifles’ or reducing magazines doesn’t stop school violence or mall shootings or movie theater shootings? Well, naturally the handguns will be next, just like they came for them in NY and Chicago. Then maybe we will see the call to ban “assault weapons”. And the assault weapons definition is about as ambiguous as you can imagine.

 Here is a list of “mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks” in China from 2010-2012. China already has strict gun ownership laws, thus the truly dedicated to killing innocent will use any means necessary, as you can see. England (who else) has actually seen a push to eliminate “long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing” so again I ask, when does it end?

 It ends when they say it ends. It ends when the calamities of life cease to exist. They won’t and that is the whole point. Let me leave you with this; and this will be the most important thing I will ever say on this topic.

The rush to get your gun, chipping away at your rights with one piece of legislation at a time is no accident. The state fears you. When it’s no longer able to control you with its debt mechanism and money manipulations… when it all comes tumbling down through hyperinflation or a spiral of irreversible deflation; the state will have to protect itself be any means necessary. The more the state can force dependency, the less important freedoms become. The more we are divided the easier and resistance is conquered. A people not divided and instead unified not to mention well armed is the ultimate threat to that power. The state fears you and me… and for good reason.

1 comment to ‘Now is the Time’

  • James Tetreault

    Well said, Fletch. I only want to add a couple things.

    One, some people in the media will deride the idea that citizens having guns is a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You can’t compete against all that the police and armed services can bring against you, they sneer. And that’s true. But what they miss is that the point is not for every individual homeowner to try to go 1 on 1 against a local police force and the national guard and win. The point is that the local police force and national guard don’t want to have to try to disarm the folks in 1,000 different homes in a medium size town. Yes, they can overpower any one of them. But the danger and effort of tryign to do it 1,000 times is a serious deterrent. The point is to make the overall effort prohibitively difficult.

    Second, I just wanted to note that even the most gun control friendly supreme court case, Miller vs. U.S. (1939), the one that the scummy Little Boy Cuomo and Diane “Caste System” Feinstein probably like best, does NOT support the law passed in New York and the one being considered in Massachusetts. These laws essentially call every semi-automatic weapon an -gasp- assault weapon and outlaw them.

    But even the ruling in Miller said that it was constitutional to outlaw sawed off shotguns because they were not “. . of the kind in common use at the time . . ” and therefor reasonable to be considered weapons of a militia. Well, semi-automatic pistols and semi-automatic rifles are the MOST common kids of weapons out there.

Support our fight with a one time donation.


Over 300+ Videos