Friday, January 11, 2013

Tyranny And Gun Control


Gun-control executive order in the works?


From the Weekly Standard on January 9, 2013:
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executive orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."

Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill.

Eric Holder was scheduled to be at the meeting that's currently taking place at the White House.
A history lesson (hat tip to Gateway Pundit for the video below):


Some reading from, of all places, Pravda, on December 28, 2012, by guest writer Mat Rodina: Americans never give up your guns.  [working link HERE]; the Pravda link is no longer working]  First paragraph:
These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions....
Read the rest HERE.

For as long as I can remember, alarmists have been screeching, "They're coming for our guns!"  That screeching got on my nerves like you wouldn't believe.

Now, in these weeks after the horror of Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, I am reminded of Aesop's story, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," the reason that I used the graphic at the beginning of this blog post:
There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"
Shortly, America is going to find out if the wolf has truly arrived.

37 comments:

  1. From this source:

    ERIC HOLDER: 'we need to “really brainwash people” '

    Eric Holder 1995, discussing how those who believe in the 2nd Amendment (i.e. adherence to the Constitution) should be ashamed, ‘like smokers’.

    Note he is talking about short-cutting, rather than an AMENDMENT, which is the responsible method for change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is it true that you are allowed to use deadly force to defend your possessions?

    ReplyDelete
  3. When the government, itself, becomes Public Enemy Number One, the only sane thing to do is to go underground.

    When the law is unjust and insane and administered by an equally unjust, insane establishment determined NOT to represent our best interests as individual citizens, it is our RIGHT to ALTER -- or better yet -- ABOLISH the Establishment.

    "LIVE FREE -- OR DIE!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jez,
    To my knowledge, that matter varies by state.

    For example, see THIS STATUTE in Indiana.

    Virginia statute seems to differ on the matter of using deadly force to defend one's property. I live in Virginia.

    I'm not sure, but I think that one is supposed to use only deadly force if one feels that one's life is threatened.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Is it true that you are allowed to use deadly force to defend your possessions?"

    Yes, of course. What a stupid question!


    Dick Wilde

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have been and remain a HUGE fan of Bernard Goetz.

    If anyone should accost you with what-appears-to-be hostile intent, you should have every right to pull out a pistol and shoot him dead on the spot, leave his lifeless remains for the Sanitation Department to dispose of as they see fit, then go on your merry way unchallenged.

    MY life is worth a great more than anyone ELSE'S -- to ME.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unfortunatly wolf has been cried so often that many utterly ignore it, if they even believe the wolf exists. Which many don't.
    This issue... it always makes me want to beat my head against a wall. How can people be so stupid! Argh. I'll save my ranting for a post eventually.

    Oh, and FWI: The prada page is, from all I can tell, deleted. Thanks to Chrome (and google catching everything)I can see a 'catched' version, but that's it. Maybe its a glitch, but I'm keeping what I can see either way. The truth has an uncanny knack of disappearing... this has happened before.

    -Wildstar

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wildstar,
    I assure you that the Pravda link worked yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wildstar,
    The entire essay by Mat Rodina is also HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  10. From this source:

    Obama Opposed Gun Ban Exception to Defend One’s Home

    As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.

    Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.

    The vote is a sign of how committed President Obama may be to strict gun control measures.

    Just eight years earlier, in 1996, Obama answered “Yes” to a survey question asking whether he would support state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

    The Obama 2008 presidential campaign claimed the form had been filled out by an aide who mischaracterized Obama’s position, even though Obama’s handwriting was found on survey.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The WOLF is now disguised as the SHEPHERD.

    That's the modern twist on Aesop's ancient parable.

    Our PROTECTORS have become our PERSECUTORS.

    Result: Either we are already being eaten alive -- or soon will be.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another way of putting it:

    The SHEPHERD today is a WOLF in SHEEP'S CLOTHING.

    It's tantamount to discovering accidentally around age eight or nine, that that the only reason your parents had you, and have been raising you is to provide THEM with a FEAST were YOU will be the MAIN DISH when your young body will be at its most tender and delicious phase!

    TERRIFYING, what?

    ReplyDelete
  13. @AOW I'm sure it was, but I can't assess it today... whatever. And thanks for the link!

    -Wildstar

    ReplyDelete
  14. FT,
    The WOLF is now disguised as the SHEPHERD.

    That's the modern twist on Aesop's ancient parable.


    That's the disaster that we've got, all right. **sigh**

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ LooneyTunes aka _________ -- 'OUR' corporate killing machine?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Liburaltwitt,you and the dem's houseboy ain't going to be able to save you from the likes of us "hard right wingers, the NRA or those evil corporations".

    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
    > --Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

    Since you are the one obsessing about the size of gun owners "junk", it would seem to be you and the other fascists worrying about the size of someones "junk" and trying to convince yourselves that gun owners are trying to compensate for "your" inadequacy.

    Tell your shrink that your psychotropic drugs aren't working and ask him if he could introduce you to a real live woman.(hint)They aren't made from vinyl.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ Warren -- Freud was some smart guy, huh?! Man, did he ever hit it.

    And I'm sure glad you clarified what Liblizzard was talking about when he was all obsessing (as you say) about the size of our 'junk.' I thought he was dissing my weapons... now that I think about it, I guess he was: "this is my rifle and this is my gun -- one is for shooting and one is for fun."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Liberalmann appears to be a perseverating masochist.

    @ Warren,
    That's a great quote from Einstein!

    ReplyDelete
  20. We all knew this was coming. All the Mexicans, blacks and others on welfare voted for Obama, some of them 2 or 3 times as we knew they would, and elected not a president but a dictator.

    Guns are one of those visceral issues that only rulers living in fear do fear. Fear of assassination and revolution has always been behind the effort to take the guns away. Over twice as many people die from accidental falls in this country as they do from gun homicides. More people are murdered with baseball bats than guns. Ahh, but guns can reach out and touch you if you've been bad.

    There will always be millions of guns in America. Secret manufacturing will take over if our legal makers are shut down. All it takes is a good machinist and tools of the trade. The way our military is being P.C'd into docility, there will come a time when they'll be too busy fighting off foreign attack to defend D.C, and that's when we'll wipe out the corrupt bastards and start over.

    Meanwhile, anyone notice that France has gone to war in Mali against Muslims?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Biden said controlling guns is a moral issue? Killing is a moral issue. Caring for the mentally ill is a moral issue. Cotrolling guns is not a moral issue.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Black Sheep -- "Guns are one of those visceral issues that only rulers living in fear do fear. Fear of assassination and revolution has always been behind the effort to take the guns away."

    I'm surprised it took Our Dear Leader so long to put the 'armed body guards for life' exec order into effect.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "really brainwash people"...and he's been trying since he took office; and wait till he's on the Supreme Court, which could be next year; after Obama weighs the areas in which Holder can do the most damage to our country. He might keep him as AG for a while....what other agency could rule their boss innocent and Americans just shut up and take that ruling in F&F? Unbelievable.

    AOW, I'm hearing about Biden suggesting we only allow guns whose owner can shoot them (technologically achieved)...imagine? So, since that's HUGELY expensive to do, that's perfect for the Obama no gun nuts! PERFECT!
    They raised ammo prices and that didn't work; they've done ALL they can, and sales are WAAAAAY up right now.
    SO...make them SO expensive BY EXEC ORDER, and VOILA!

    And we the sheeple are buying it.
    wow

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Marine4ever:
    "Freud was some smart guy, huh?! Man, did he ever hit it."

    Freud wasn't always right but he sure nailed that one.

    One of Freud's contemporaries (Carl Jung) had some interesting things to say about nitwits like the lib-twit. Jung would say that the twit is suffering from displacement which is is an unconscious defense mechanism where the mind redirects emotions and desires of his own (the mass murder of children with weapons)from himself to others deemed to be dangerous or unacceptable to himself, (conservatives, the tea party -et al.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Good post, but I disagree with your conclusion. I always found the paranoia about guns is very admirable. I like it that people are so devoted to the 2nd Amendment, and it's not an unjustified paranoia because so many of our compatriots would like to confiscate the guns, all of them. Plus, the pro-gun side is winning the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And also, the argument that Russia was the freest society on earth under the Tzars when there was actual slavery there... mmm... yeah. There is more to freedom than gun ownership.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ edgeofthesandbox :

    AOW can answer for herself I will not presume to speak for her although we are very close. I don't believe she offered any conclusions.

    Looking at the writings of the Federalist and anti-Federalist factions of the founders, we can clearly see that both factions agreed that there is an inalienable, God given, natural right, to possess and bear arms in defense of person, family and Liberty. In this way we are sovereign in our persons.

    The 2nd Amendment does not "guarantee" that right (i.e. to keep and bear arms). The founders believed that it was so obvious that it couldn't be misconstrued. The 2nd Amendment "forbids" the Federal government from interfering with that right. Therefore, the Federal government is forbidden the sole power of franchise of violence and may be subject to same in the event of tyrannical behavior.

    It is my personal feeling that this call for a banning weapons could lead to a civil war and that a person unwilling to defend their rights is unworthy of them.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Edge,
    Warren is correct: I offered no conclusions.

    Now, about the argument that Russia was the freest society on earth under the Tzars....

    The last tzar of Russia was Nicholas II. His grandfather, Alexander II, did institute many reforms, including emancipation of the serfs. Despite those reforms, there were several assassination attempts upon Alexander II. Alexander II was assassinated in 1881.

    The assassination of Alexander II had, as one might imagine, a severe effect on young Nicholas II, who became more and more distrustful of giving the lower classes of Russia more freedoms.

    Aftermath of the assassination of Alexander II:

    The assassination caused a great setback for the reform movement. One of Alexander II's last ideas was to draft plans for an elected parliament, or Duma, which were completed the day before he died but not yet released to the Russian people. In a matter of 48 hours, Alexander II planned to release his plan for the duma to the Russian people. Had he lived, Russia might have followed a path to constitutional monarchy instead of the long road of oppression that defined his successor's reign. The first action Alexander III took after his coronation was to tear up those plans. A Duma would not come into fruition until 1905, when Alexander II's grandson, Nicholas II, commissioned the Duma following extreme pressure on the monarchy as a result of the Russian Revolution of 1905.

    A second consequence of the assassination was anti-Jewish pogroms and legislation.

    A third consequence of the assassination was that suppression of civil liberties in Russia and police brutality burst back in full force after experiencing some restraint under the reign of Alexander II. Alexander II's murder and subsequent death was witnessed first-hand by his son, Alexander III, and his grandson, Nicholas II, both future emperors, who vowed not to have the same fate befall them. Both used the Okhrana to arrest protestors and uproot suspected rebel groups, creating further suppression of personal freedom for the Russian people.

    Finally, the assassination inspired anarchists to advocate "'propaganda by deed'—the use of a spectacular act of violence to incite revolution.


    I'm using Wikipedia above for convenience.

    BTW, one reason that I'm more-or-less up to snuff on the modern history of Russia is that, this year, I am teaching the course Western Civilization through Film; my class recently watched the film Nicholas and Alexandra.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Warren,
    It is my personal feeling that this call for a banning weapons could lead to a civil war

    A few years ago, I'd have agreed with you. Now, I'm not so sure that many Americans have a clue about inalienable rights, our nation's history, and our Constitution. Too many Americans think that it is time to bring about a new world order. Furthermore, so many Americans are more concerned about their iPhones and other devices than about their personal freedoms.

    The Romans had bread and circuses. We have devices and entertainment.

    Last night, it came home to me just how wacky Americans have become. Mr. AOW and I went to the Washington National Cathedral for a concert. During the intermission, instead of walking around and soaking up the wonderful atmosphere inside that cathedral, so many people were playing with their iPhones! Hell, some were even leaving their seats during the concert so as to access their iPhones; mostly these people seemed to be accessing their email or updating their Twitter accounts. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Addendum:
    In this seemingly endless struggle between the forces of Statism and Liberty, we see the Statists / Progressives, ridicule the forces of Liberty. The Statists natural allies, the ill educated, the neurotic and those that believe nameless faceless bureaucrats give a rats ass what happens to them, flock to the call as a mother hens chicks seek the false protection of her shadow.

    We see this insanity in a world where the mindless, ever frightened, liberaltwit (In the comment I deleted) called out to his would-be God, Emperor and master, (Barack the almost competent) to save him by executive presidential order.

    Its sickening to see such groveling and I am ashamed to have seen it!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Warren,
    Its sickening to see such groveling and I am ashamed to have seen it!

    Liberalmann's attitude pervades here in the D.C. area. Yes, absolutely sickening.

    I'm depressed over what I see on the local morning news -- and elsewhere, too. The Leftist love those executive orders.

    We are living in "America" now -- not in America.

    ReplyDelete
  32. AOW -- my vote goes with you in your assessment of "banning of weapons could lead to a civil war." It won't happen. There are too many 'apathetics' and not enough of 'us' -- this was shown 06 Nov 2012.

    I'm a Marine. I don't, haven't and will not give up. But, in the eyes of the newer generations, would I die a martyr or as some crazy old geezer that the world would be better off without? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

    I have adult (almost) grandchildren that were brought up by fathers and mothers that hunted, fished and camped all their lives -- they and I still do. Over the years, the agony of trying to separate the grandchildren and their friends from the iPhones and video devices has proven to be insurmountable. Some of them have only seen the sun on their way to the mall. Their minds are channeled to technology -- which is a good thing, but only to technology -- which is a bad thing; admittedly, we must take a lot of the blame for this.

    A civil war would happen if certain video games (for which I blame a majority of the mass killings on -- desensitizing does work) or certain technology were taken away. What the 'apathetics' don't understand is, it's their individual technology that will be the next to go. To paraphrase: "Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant and down on the farm."

    Your assessment that "We are living in 'America' now -- not in America" is in the X ring... I just prefer to spell it 'Amerika.' Sort of gives it a more Communistic comrade look, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Marine4ever,
    In some regions of our nation, there are plenty of gutsy people, people who know what's a stake.

    But in the urban and suburban areas surrounding big cities, particularly those in the Northeast and the on the Left Coast, there has been a sea change regarding the role of government.

    Thus, as you stated, There are too many 'apathetics' and not enough of 'us' -- this was shown 06 Nov 2012.

    The obsession with technology, the education system, the big media -- all of these have combined to effect the sea change I mentioned above.

    You may have read Linda Kimball's essay "Cultural Marxism," but in case you haven't, HERE is the link.

    'Amerika' is a more accurate term for the nation we now live in.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thanks for the link, AOW. No, I haven't read the essay but I certainly intend to.

    It may have seemed that my above comments were all about the 'outdoor life' and the 2nd Amendment was meant for the preservation of deer and duck hunting.

    Wrong!

    The 2nd Amendment is for what your entire post is about -- keeping our nation from being under a cruel and oppressive government.

    I have never been afraid of anything in my entire life. I am afraid now -- of my own government.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Warren, AOW,
    OK, I misstated. I'm not going to put words into AOW's mouth.
    AOW, your knowledge of Russian imperial history is impressive. Actually, that source you cited in the post (and I think he was dead on about the gun issue in particular, and he seems like a decent human being, but he's wrong about Russian history) didn't specifically mention Alexander, he talked of tzarist Russia in general... and some of his examples are totally off. Yes, the cossacks were free spirits, but ask Ukrainians why they hate Russians (some Ukrainians, at least), and you get an earful about Catherine the great.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. We will delete comments that include any of the following:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective
4. We do not respond to anonymous comments