Do you trust your government?

Yesterday I had lunch with Barb L. and as I was giving her an overview of our current political situation something crystalized and I thought I would share, in more detail, that insight.

I have been a gun rights activist since 1995 and have seen the fight from the perspective of someone “in the trenches”. In this post I want to give the 10,000 foot view of the battle.

Gun ownership is under more pressure with draconian laws affecting more people than I have ever seen. And I remember watching the TV news as the gun control act of 1968 was being debated. A month ago gun rights activists were on the offense and making steady progress. We would have minor losses and advances would be slowed or temporarily stopped but we would use what we learned from the failure and reapply the next legislative or court session. The anti-freedom people were on the defensive and operating with severally restricted finances. That changed on December 14, 2012.

One tragedy, implemented by a mentally ill man, put us on the defensive again. That tragedy is used by both the politicians and the anti-freedom activists as the reason for the latest push for gun control. It was the spark that ignited the Gabby Giffords anti-gun Political Action Committee two years after she was shot by another mentally ill person. It is the justification for the committee on “gun violence” headed by V.P. Biden.

I completely understand the grief and the urge to prevent such terrible tragedies but there is something that truly scares me about the political reaction to these tragedies.

Let’s take a look at some of the proposed anti-freedom legislation.

From New York state:

  • Ban any magazine that can hold over seven rounds.
  • Existing magazines holding more than 10 rounds must leave the state or be destroyed.
  • Existing eight to 10 round magazines may be kept but must not be loaded with more than seven rounds.
  • “High volume” (undefined) purchases of ammunition will alert the police.
  • Universal background checks will prohibit sales between private parties without a background check.

The Federal government wish list formulated by V.P. Biden isn’t public yet but it is expected to include essentially the same things along with numerous executive actions such as increased gun control “research” and enforcement of existing laws.

What is particularly striking and scary to me is that none of the firearms restrictions would have prevented the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting or even reduced the death toll. The facts are that the shooter had 15 to 20 minutes without serious resistance by someone with a gun. Even if he fired three rounds for every one of the 26 people murdered that would have only required 10 magazine changes with a limitation of seven rounds per magazine instead of the three with 30 round magazines. Suppose a magazine change on an AR-15 style rifle requires five seconds (with practice it requires far less). Had he been limited to seven rounds per magazine it would have taken him, at most, an extra 35 seconds to execute his foul deeds.

Even if all semi-automatic firearms were banned, and unavailable, the reloading of a six round revolver is also easily (with some practice) accomplished in less than five seconds. Suppose it was 12 reloads instead of the three. This requires, at most, 45 more seconds.

A total of something on the order of 100 rounds were used. A typical practice session of mine is on the order of 300 rounds. A typical weekend class is on the order of 1000 rounds. A one day pistol match is on the order of 150 rounds. Any “alerts” the police receive will be totally without meaning.

The shooter did not obtain his guns through a private sale. He murdered his mother with her own guns and took them.

Weerd Beard has more examples with a broader historical scope but arrives at the same conclusion, in many instances the firearms restrictions proposed and passed into law would not have prevented the tragedies that inspired the law.

If the Sandy Hook shooting is the motivation and none of the solutions being so vigorously being pushed would have in any way prevented the tragedy then what is the real reason? I can only come up with two different hypotheses to explain the politicians demands for more firearms restrictions:

  1. They have ulterior motives they are not sharing with us.
  2. They are unwilling or unable to act rationally.

If it is the first then what could those ulterior motives be? From U.S. history we know the motivation for restricting firearm access to the native Indians, the slaves, and blacks in general was to the extreme detriment of those populations. Internationally the same was true in Russia in 1918, the German Weapons Control Act of 1938, in China throughout the 20th Century, and in many other instances. The people in control of the government had sinister plans for the disarmed populations.

If it is the second then there is no predicting what these people might do next. And there is every reason to believe they will act in ways that will be to the extreme detriment of the whole of society.

This realization should shake the U.S. population to its very core. This should be like the moment you see in the movies when someone realizes that the person standing in front of them is either very evil or very crazy. It should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up and a chill run down your spine.

This is not, and cannot be, about preventing the shooting of elementary school children. This is about sinister and/or irrational people in control of our government who are trying to take your means to defend yourself and your family away from you.

Do you trust a government like that? And what do you do about it?


27 thoughts on “Do you trust your government?

  1. Pingback: Quote of the Day - Joe Huffman (01/15/2013) - The Minuteman

  2. Our liberal politicians have demonstrated they are impervious to logic, facts, reason, or an awareness of human history and the genocidal abuses of government.

    I do not think they are that stupid or ignorant (well, that is debatable). I do not think they are truly motivated by protecting society and our children when all gun control laws have been demonstrated to be useless for this goal.

    So, their efforts must be for nefarious purposes. I will not submit, I will not register my firearm, I will not play nice and forgive them. They are simply tyrants-in-training or despot wannabes.

  3. No Joe, I don’t. And I don’t believe in nonviolent disobedience in support of the 2nd Amendment either. That’s not what the Minutemen used at Concord Bridge on 19 April 1775 when the British came for their guns. They lost the battle, but very few Redcoats made it back to Boston, as an aroused countryside resounded to the fire of rifles and muskets from behind trees, fences and stone walls. Molon Labe!

  4. The Newtown massacre was the kind of thing that has precipitated broad and blanket gun bans in other countries. It was bound to set things back a good bit in terms of what we’ve achieved.

    As I said yesterday, I think the push for gun control is a manifestation of a cultural condescension. They want to be rid of the icky guns and don’t want to be forced to associate with the icky people who use them. Many of them project their own weakness and failings.

    The new James O’Keefe video is quite instructive, or so I am told by Bitter (I will have to wait until I get home to watch) as far as what they really think of gun owners when they are among people they think are likeminded.

    I don’t think most of them would stuff people into cattle cars, but there are certainly some on the other side I’ve become convinced would. But they all would like to be rid of guns and be rid of gun ownership as a concept.

    • Most of them would not “stuff people in cattle cars”. But from reading about many genocides that is pretty much universally true. The people actually involved in that sort of thing is below 1%. And bringing it back home–how many people really cared about what happened at Ruby Ridge, Waco, or even the Jim Crow laws and the lynching of blacks in the deep south?

      The true question is would they do anything more than look the other way if there were some people doing the equivalent to gun owners?

      I see little difference between “Yucky gun owners!” and “Yucky gays/Jews/blacks!” when they are willing to ignore very clear, specific, enumerated constitutionally protected rights.

      If the number of people willing to vote in support of gun owners even when their rights are clearly being violated is not greater than 50% then we have a problem.

      I feel a blog post coming on. I have an email from a communist survivor to share…

    • “I don’t think most of them would stuff people into cattle cars…”

      Of course not. Like their gardening and raising their children, they’d hire someone to do that.

  5. My theory is that it is somewhere between the two. We have all wondered why there is a push to enact various laws that will have no effect on crimes they are purported to stop. My answer is that they are not meant too. The group of people pushing these laws, remember they have no grassroots, have various protective services so they and theirs are not particularly worried about violent crime. What they are worried about is otherwise law abiding people without criminal histories wanting to do them harm. Senator Feinstein was hunted by a terrorist group who wished her harm. She carried a firearm then. This is the kind of people that worry them and that their protective services can not deal with as well as common criminals. So we have a group of people that consider themselves to be under threat. How would you deal with that? Make the threat go away. Take away the tools that could cause them harm. This does not need any large conspiracy. It just need fear in a powerful part of the population. The world seems to be heading to more economic, military, and environmental chaos so they need to make sure that there are fewer people that can harm them.

    This is not a call to do something stupid but instead an alternative explanation of why they keep pushing the same stupid crap again and again. They are scared and scared people can easily look crazy.

    • “We have all wondered why there is a push to enact various laws that will have no effect on crimes they are purported to stop.”

      I haven’t wondered for 19 years now. I know.

      Scared people ARE crazy.

      There’s more to this than fear, though fear can certainly explain it in some cases. There’s been a general plan, or direction, place for 100 years and we’re getting down the stages that require disarmament.

      The Enemy’s real advantage now, as in several examples of the past, is that very few people will believe the true extent of the crazy, wild evil it has in store. It’s “just too crazy to believe” even though we’ve seen it happen over and over.

      You have to face up to it, People. You can’t defeat an enemy you can’t, or won’t, even define.

      And let’s not be crazy ourselves (fear is a state of temporary insanity). There’s no cause for fear when what we need is understanding and resolve.

  6. As a NYer I have to live with this crap. Some of my favorite guns (Ruger 10/22, MarkII with Volquartsen parts, Savage MkII bolt action for starters) will become utterly useless unless someone makes 7-rounders, but who will make special mags JUST for the NY market?
    In addition I risk serious jail time for accidentally taking an 8-round 1911 mag with me instead of the seven-rounder… wtf, Cuomo?

    • You have my sympathy. I plan to join the NYSRPA and continue my support of SAF. Is there anything else I can do to help? I would offer a place in Idaho for storage of some of your items but that is a long way from your home and something in Pennsylvania is probably much better for your needs.

      • That’s really awesome, Joe. Thanks for the offer. Out of state storage is one option. There are others. They guys at my range (and we’re a great, tight-knit bunch) are talking of moving like never before…

  7. You’re complaining now because Biden just might recommend “enforcement of existing laws”?

    • I just intended to say that the Feds (Biden in this case) intended similar things but also had some differences. Those that were similar would not have made a difference in the Sandy Hook instance and the differences, such as the “research” and “enforcement of existing laws” would not have made any difference either in this case either.

      I didn’t mean to imply I was complaining about the enforcement of existing laws. There are a multitude of reasons to complain about many of them but that would distract from my main point and is a topic for another blog post.

  8. Pingback: SayUncle » No

  9. Don’t invest too much emotional energy into this fight, just treat the opposition with the contempt they deserve. After all, they are proposing (and in NY passing) the same laws that were voted down time and time again under calmly rational inspection.

    Dancing in blood is required by the anti-gun groups to avoid any scrutiny of their illogical proposals. Their barbarous actions should be pointed out whenever necessary. But don’t take it as anything less than desperation on their part. They haven’t won a damn thing since 1994.

  10. Pingback: Some Historical Context… - The Minuteman

  11. Pingback: Quote of the day—Adrian Bogdan | The View From North Central Idaho

  12. Do you trust a government like that? And what do you do about it?

    I see several “No” answers to the first question, but no responses to the second. And isn’t the second question really the one that needs answered?

    I have zero doubt that the enemy wants us to be upset, agitated, angry, fearful, and to act irrationally. So that is something we do NOT do. As for the rest of it, I don’t know. For my own part I think the answer will present itself. As in hunting, the game must present itself, and all the will and anticipation in the world won’t help otherwise.

  13. I don’t know. Continue using the Soap Box and the Ballot Box. The time for the Cartridge Box is not upon us yet, thank God.

  14. Oh, and send money to NRA (anybody who gets Rachel Maddow so upset has to be encouraged), California Rifle and Pistol Association (I can’t write off the state where I live just because 60% of the residents are anti-liberty) and the Second Amendment Foundation (Are they the organization Alan Gura works with?)

  15. Pingback: Quote of the Day–Paul Barrett (1/27/2013) - The Minuteman

Comments are closed.