Government prepares for war with the people, and mass media approves

Kurt Hofmann

Last September, in “The government’s war at home,” St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner looked at some ominous developments that seem to indicate preparation on the government’s part for domestic warfare. The enemy? Oh, the usual suspects in these times of fear mongering about “right-wing violence”–“anti-federalists,” “Tea Party insurgents,” militias, etc.

The newest “enemy” (theoretically, of course–at the moment), according to authorities in Ohio, is “Second Amendment activists,” who are so angry about federal “gun control” laws that they use chemical, biological and radiological weapons against . . . someone–who that would be is not very clear.

Meanwhile, with retailers struggling to meet the demand for ammunition, and government agencies buying it up by the hundreds of millions of rounds (thus both further exacerbating private citizens’ difficulty in procuring ammo, and boosting these agencies’ own supplies to levels more than adequate to kill the entire citizenry), there are alarming indications that the military is further choking off citizens’ supply, by (illegally) destroying used cartridge brass that would otherwise be sold back to the civilian market and reloaded for inexpensive ammo.

Even far more chilling, if true, are allegations that the Obama administration has imposed a “litmus test” on senior military leaders, with an unwillingness to order troops to fire on American citizens being disqualifying for command. Stewart Rhodes, veteran paratrooper and founder of the Oath Keepers, told St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner that this claim, while deeply disturbing, is not in the least implausible:

I find it very plausible. Frankly, I would be shocked if it were not happening. Now, I have no “smoking gun” confirmation of that, but let’s just say that it fits like a glove with all that we do know is fully confirmed.

While this is going on, gun ban advocates in Congress, emboldened by the public outrage over the Sandy Hook Elementary atrocity, have escalated their forcible citizen disarmament campaign to a historically unprecedented pitch. Two of he crown jewels of that campaign are banning so-called “assault weapons” (although there is a much better name for them–just keep in mind that select-fire “weapons of war”–with “high capacity” magazines–become “personal defense weapons” when in the government enforcers’ hands), and banning “high capacity” magazines.

Representative Jim Hines (D-CT) explains why this is necessary, as quoted in the Huffington Post:

There is absolutely no justification for weapons that were made for the explicit purpose of killing lots of people quickly to be in the hands of civilians.

Himes, by the way, is apparently one of those who does not see law enforcement officers as civilians (and certainly not as “peace officers”), as demonstrated by his co-sponsorship of Rep. Carolyn “What’s a Barrel Shroud?” McCarthy’s (D-NY) magazine ban bill, H.R. 138, which exempts not only active police, but retired “Only Ones,” as well.

That “only purpose is killing lots of people quickly” argument is old hat to anyone who has followed the “assault weapon” and magazine ban debates for any length of time. U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) says the same thing when he talks about magazine bans:

The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.

Like Rep. McCarthy, Lautenberg exempts both active and retired law enforcement from his magazine bans.

The mass media buys that hook, line and sinker, but sometimes takes it a truly disturbing step further, as a recent Salt Lake Tribune editorial does:

Assault weapons that can fire numerous times in seconds are designed for only one thing: killing large numbers of people. The military and law enforcement officers need that ability; ordinary law-abiding citizens do not.

Get that? Law enforcement officers “need” to be capable of “killing large numbers of people.” What part of maintaining law and order requires mass slaughter?

If there is any conceivable scenario in which law enforcement officers need to kill “large numbers of people,” then “large numbers of [we the] people” need as much firepower as we can possibly acquire.

This article first appeared at Examiner.

Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments