#2) A Supreme Court decision would expose the illegitimacy of the court and reveal the outright criminality of the federal
If, somehow, the U.S. Supreme Court finds these new state gun restrictions laws to be "constitutional,"
such a decision would be equivalent to a declaration that the court has openly abandoned its only real duty, which is to halt
overreaching laws that violate the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
At this point, there would be widespread realization that the judiciary is an occupying enemy force acting in violation
of their sworn oaths of office. If such a scenario unfolds, I theoretically predict, but do not condone, the likelihood that
disgruntled individuals, having been stripped of their freedoms by a clearly illegal and unconstitutional judiciary, would
take it upon themselves to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court justices who violated the Constitution as well as key high-level
members of the federal government. Again, I'm not condoning this nor advocating it, because I do not believe violence is the
appropriate path to a long-term solution in all this. However, I cannot deny the possibility of a decentralized, spontaneous
armed response to the "long train of abuses" that liberty-loving Americans continue to suffer under today.
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify the Second Amendment would be seen by millions of Americans as nothing less
than an outright declaration of war... and may spark an armed revolt against the tyranny. This may be precisely why DHS has
purchased over 2 billion rounds of ammunition, many of which are hollow point rounds intended solely to cause maximum tissue
damage against human targets on the streets of America.
#3) A civil war may be underway before any of this makes it to the courts
At some point, the law-abiding citizens of
America, when repeatedly oppressed, provoked and denied justice under law, will reluctantly decide that "following the
law" is irrelevant. They will take up arms and begin to physically fight for the liberties that are being incrementally
stolen from them by tyrants at both the state and federal level.
Globalists appear to be attempting to trigger precisely
this reaction. The gambit is to see if a small reactionary group of "terrorists" (i.e. anyone with a gun who fights
against oppression) can be cajoled into committing acts of violence that would justify the declaration of Martial Law and
a nationwide gun confiscation domestic military action. If such an act of resistance cannot be provoked, it can always be
engineered and pulled off by the FBI which is already well-practiced at staging terrorists attacks in the USA, then recruiting
hapless stooges to frame as "terrorist masterminds" to be arrested.
This is where the "stuff" really hits the fan, because we'll see all-out war between various
factions of gun grabbers vs. gun defenders. Big-city police will attempt to shoot and murder sheriffs. Patriot groups within
the U.S. military will mutiny and take over entire units to protect and defend the Constitution. A military coup might target
top administration officials in Washington D.C. Regional wars might break out between urban (gun control) and rural (gun rights)
communities. And the big kicker? Obama might call in the United Nations to aid in "halting the terrorists," setting
off an international war against America and the Constitution. (This may be Obama's ultimate end game.)
During war, you are not bound by laws
During all of this, gun laws are
irrelevant. If things degrade to a point where otherwise law-abiding citizens feel no choice but to pick up a rifle and start
killing tyrants, then they are way past the point of politely following laws written on paper.
Furthermore, once the state declares you a "terrorist" - which the
federal government has seemingly already done with veterans and gun owners - there is really no point in attempting to abide
by any laws whatsoever because the government already claims to right to murder you without due process thanks to the NDAA
and Obama's "kill lists" of Americans to assassinate.
DHS specifically defines "terrorists" in America
- Americans who believe their "way of life" is under attack
- Americans who are "fiercely
- People who consider themselves "anti-global"
- Americans who are "suspicious
of centralized federal authority"
- Americans who are "reverent of individual liberty"
- People who
"believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty."
Thus, at least half the U.S. population has already been deemed "terrorists."
According to the White House, this means they have no right to due process.
In a scenario when resistance fighters realize
they will not be offered anything resembling due process, they will only fight harder and become even more aggressive in their
tactics and stance. After all, if you are cornered but offered a fair trial that you can genuinely trust to be fair, you might
simply surrender and avoid the risk of death. But if you are cornered by a regime that has already announced it's going to
call you an "enemy combatant" and claims to right to secretly kill you without any due process whatsoever, there
is no additional risk in fighting to the death. You are dead anyway, logically speaking.
Even more, there is no moral hesitation against people in such a position resorting to tactics
that would otherwise be scorned such as targeting family members of specific enemy targets. Even, imaginably, mass public
suicide bombings would be an inevitable behavior of people who exist under extreme oppression with seemingly no recourse.
This is the logic behind the mass bombings in Israel, of course. Whether right or wrong, the suicide bombers feel they have
no recourse and have already been placed on government murder lists anyway.
By signing the NDAA and creating kill lists
of Americans to murder with drones, Obama has actually radicalized whatever resistance might someday rise up in America if
government oppression worsens. He has put laws and executive orders in place that have essentially pre-announced to gun owners
and veterans, "You will not be given a fair trial. You will be named an enemy combatant and murdered by your own government."
This action by Obama is extremely irresponsible, arrogant and dangerous. It is precisely the kind of stance that could provoke
a violent response that's wildly multiplied far beyond what might have otherwise been attempted.
"If you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent revolution
inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
Keep in mind that in the recent Rand Paul filibuster in the U.S. Senate which sought
answers to whether the President believed he had the power to kill Americans on U.S. soil using military drones, the official
answer that was eventually received still claimed Americans who were "actively engaged" in anti-government activities
could be killed without due process.
"Actively engaged" could mean anything, including blogging on the web
or taking photographs of government buildings. Thus, the White House already claims the power to kill practically any American
at any time, without due process or even producing a single shred of evidence against the person.
War is the absence of civility
War is, philosophically, the complete
absence of civil law. Although the UN has tried to set "rules of war," the U.S. government routinely and habitually
violates those rules in numerous ways... torture, for example, as well as the use of weapons of mass destruction (depleted
A breakout of war means all attempts
at civility have failed and one or both parties believes they are left with no other option but attempted violence to achieve
That's how America was born, by the way: by the desperate actions of a determined minority of colonists
deciding they had endured enough suffering and oppression. They made a joint decision to flat out start killing (British)
tyrants, realizing this was their last remaining option for achieving liberty.
Due to this application of strategic violence for a noble cause, the British empire was eventually
forced to withdraw because it could not physically commit a sufficient level of violence to achieve lasting control over the
colonies. Importantly, even though the British won most of the military battles, they still lost the war for numerous tactical
and sociological reasons. This is important because it indicates that military might does not equal military victory when
people are defending their lives, their liberties and their core beliefs. (Just ask the Afghans.)
Delusional members of the radical left think they can suppress freedom by
writing words on paper
The reason all this really matters is because the radical left is wildly delusional on all this,
believing that if certain gun control words and phrases can be written on paper and ratified by members of government, then
those words become a reality and all the privately-held guns, ammo and freedoms simply vanish from existence.
precisely the same sort of delusional thinking offered up by the left's advocacy of signs that say things like "gun free
zone," ridiculously believing that words on a sign will magically alter reality.
They think the same thing about
words on paper held at the state capitol. But history has shown that words are fleeting, but liberty lives forever. While
gun control zealots may temporarily succeed in creating artificial constructs of their favorite words (i.e. "laws"),
all that's really happening in the physical world is that gun owners are burying their guns and ammo while mentally preparing
to retrieve them when necessary to defend the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
prohibition will fail just like marijuana prohibition
Guns do not disappear simply because they are banned. They go underground.
Everyone on the left should easily understand this point because most of them smoke illegal pot from time to time, and they
know how easy it is to purchase marijuana even though the substance is criminalized according to federal law. Once guns are
added to the list of banned objects, they will only become even easier to acquire through off-the-books networks of distributors
and resellers, none of whom will pay taxes or report any purchases through government "background checks" systems.
The best way to drive guns into the hands of criminals is to criminalize guns.
Gun grabbers on the left are almost mentally retarded when it comes to anticipating the real-world impacts of their laws.
Their intention is to eliminate guns, but intentions do not drive reality: economics does. Economics is the study of human
decision making and behavior, by the way, not the study of money.
Driving guns into the underground economy will effectively
construct a huge infrastructure of underground gun production, distribution and delivery, allowing anyone who can buy pot
right now to be able to buy guns in the near future. Gun shops that presently follow federal laws for background checks will
be put out of business and replaced by underground gun smugglers who follow no laws whatsoever.
In response, the federal government will multiply the budget of the ATF and
declare a "war on guns" that will be roughly as successful as today's miserable "war on drugs" - a police
state fiasco that has done nothing more than fill the prisons with innocent victims while justifying the outrageous growth
of police state agencies like the DEA.
Leftists who advocate gun control are really advocating a massive expansion of
the police state while invoking the organic, spontaneous economics of underground trade. The state cannot stop people from
getting what they really want. The failed war on drugs proves that. It's far smarter for the state to decriminalize the trade,
regulate it and tax it - and that's where gun sales are right now, before any new gun control laws are put in place.
My conclusion in all this is straightforward: The best "gun
control" (from the perspective of those wanting more gun control) is to keep guns legal and readily available through
legal retail shops that abide by government background checks and are licensed by the ATF. In this manner, gun sales are taxed
and tracked, and it avoids the rise of underground gun-running gangs.
The worst form of gun control is to criminalize
guns and drive the entire gun economy into the underground, where no sales are tracked or taxed and consumer demand will inevitably
drive the spontaneous creation of a massive underground "gun gang" distribution network. This will have the effect
of making guns far easier for criminals to acquire, and the net effect of that will be more violent crimes committed with
guns, which is exactly what the gun control zealots claim they wish to prevent.
Thus, the outcome that is desired by
gun control advocates will be the exact opposite of what actually unfolds. Such is the nature of "unforeseen consequences."
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, my friends. Try to make sure
you are not blindly running down it.