Washington powercrats want to create an unarmed nation. It’s all pretty simple. They are uneasy about a gun-toting constituency that believes in a constitutional right and duty to resist oppressive federal government. They continually assume additional power not granted them by the Constitution. Efforts to repeal the Second Amendment are underway.
…
A day of reckoning is inevitable. Will guns be outlawed and taken away, leaving little vestige of constitutional freedom? Armed Americans (hopefully) will not submit willingly. On the other hand, a disarmed citizenry will have no choice but to behave like sheep. The pioneers of freedom who wrote the Declaration of Independence were considered traitors by a despotic British government, but they were not sheep. Neither did they intend their descendants to be.
Sheriff Richard I. Mack
From My
Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), pages 156 and 157.
[This book was written in the mid 1990s. That was a very dark time for the future of gun ownership. Now, with gun control well on it’s way to the dustbin of history, freedom activists are considering moving on to issues such as food control. My work with gun control won’t be done until there are successful prosecutions of anti-gun politicians and law enforcement people for violation of 18 USC 242 and donating money to the Brady Campaign is as socially toxic as membership in the KKK is today.
I think my next cause will be the elimination of the TSA (A Security Theater) or the war on some drugs.–Joe]
While the TSA is stupid and a waste of time and money, I think the war on some drugs has done far more damage to the country.
Might be easier to eliminate the TSA though. There are fewer people making less money from it.
I am an ardent fan of Sheriff Mack, however part of his statement is simply wrong. Here it is, ” a disarmed citizenry will have no choice but to behave like sheep.”
If you have no arms and need them, you take them from those who have them, thus accomplishing two beneficial acts for freedom, arming a citizen and disarming an abuser.
Doesn’t anyone else think “guns are so 20th Century”? The government has better tools they can use now, like control of water, electricity, fuel, etc. What about the money supply? If you want to create chaos and allow a situation where the government can take over, all you have to do is cut a significant part of the population off from the necessities of life. Look at what happened with Katrina or after 9/11.
And apart from the money supply control of the electricity, water, and fuel is tough to control if you do not have control of the arms. And there are substitutes for paper currency such even it would not be so terrible a handicap that it could not be overcome.
???? I saw it on TV recently that our electric system was controlled by computer? Who needs guns if you can shut the computer down?
I also lived in the area of the Northridge earthquake: No electric, no gasoline. No electric, no ATMs. A lot of modern conveniences vanish without electric.
I don’t worry about paper currency since I live in an area with a lot of immigrants. They would happily barter for other items.
Still, I look at my area. Your ability to survive would depend on the amount of ammunition you have, not on how many guns you have. Guns are really “20th Century.” And that’s just for dealing with the locals. When it comes to dealing with the government, you’d need to have more than guns.
This concern that guns are so “20th Century” overlooks something major:
Yes, government can potentially shut down society. What happens when it doesn’t happen intentionally? When government collapses, and all that’s left is you and your community?
Those “20th Century” guns will come in handy for hunting food, or driving off gangs or lone muggers, until society can be re-established.
It’s ridiculous to say that this would never happen too, when it already has–Katrina, Haiti, Chicago are all good examples.