So reading this article on VP Biden's gun control initiative I was struck by two things. The first was a piece in the article:
But a coalition of liberal organizations on Wednesday sent a letter to Walmart’s chief executive asking the company to stop selling assault weapons.
“Assault weapons of all brands and models continue to adorn your shelves, from Sig Sauer M400s to Colt LE6920s,” the letter says. “We know the horrific capacity of these weapons to wreak havoc on our communities because we have witnessed it firsthand. They have no place in our streets and in our homes, and we strongly insist that you honor your 2004 pledge to ensure they have no place in your stores either.”
Perhaps it's just me but I have a problem with an "advocacy group" speaking on what does or does not have a "place in our homes".
If this group of people do not want to have a gun or any other weapon "in their homes" then they are
free to not have a gun or any other weapon "in their homes". This is that nanny state bullshit that "the left" is increasingly fond of.
While this particular letter may be directed at a private corporation, one would be a fool to think that this particular sentiment, that they can and should determine what you have in
your home or person is what they are attempting to use the power of the government for.
The second item that caught my attention was one of the comments. Alan M of California posted:
Fear of government tyranny against our citizens is the real smoking gun in the debate over gun control. Die-hard defenders of the 2nd Amendment believe that assault weapons are necessary not for hunters and sportsmen but to keep us safe from a government bound on taking away our individual liberties, starting with our guns. This is a form of paranoia and conspiracy mongering that only serves the interests of the gun industry. How ridiculous to think that armed citizens could possibly stand up to the arsenal of modern weapons under government control. Is the answer even more sophisticated citizen weaponry to keep federal government in check? Absurd.
Paranoia and conspiracy mongering.
Ruby Ridge is not "paranoia" or "conspiracy mongering". Nor was the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas. Both, particularly Ruby Ridge are examples of what happens when the state decides to use it's monopoly of force against citizens it "has a problem with." Occupy Wall Street also got a taste of that when unarmed and non-violent protestors got "
the treatment" from the NYPD. I won't even get into what happens at various G8 meetings.
Some of you may be surprised that I a black man would point to Ruby Ridge because of the White Supremacist beliefs of the Weavers. That fact should not distract one from understanding how that incident is a prime example of why the government and it's agents are bent on disarming the civilian population. Anyone who is familiar with the history founding the nation knows that the right to bear arms was as much about "a speedy militia" as it was about being a check against government abuse. This was also well known by the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. One should note that many gun restrictions, particularly in California were in direct response to the Black Panther Party for Self Defense policing the police.
It is now these disarmed and pacified civilian population that accepts "free speech zones" and being arrested for protesting outside of the presidential conventions of various parties and the like. Where "no knock" Warrants can be issued and police can run up into your home without announcing themselves because the occupant may be armed and dangerous.
It is the acceptance of this reality which causes the quoted commentator to accept the idea that the government ought to be and is 'rightfully" so well armed that the citizenship has no other choice but to submit to it and accept whatever pittance of "rights" that the government allows.
