| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Them’s fightin’ words
Got this off SurvivalBlog. Well worth reading.
Fighting Words: An Open Letter to Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.
The New York Times just published the newspaper’s first front page editorial in 95 years. It urged America’s legislators to outlaw civilian ownership of semiautomatic battle rifles. This editorial twisted words to castigate our militia arms as follows: “These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.”
The editor went on to urge: “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.” [Emphasis added.]
Those are fighting words. They’ve made it clear: These statists want to enact a law forcing civilian disarmament. This would of course be enforced under color of law, by their recently militarized bully boys in black. (Formerly in blue.)
I have a few terse points for publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., editor Dean Baquet, their subordinate editors of the New York Times, and all others of their ilk:
- The words of our Founding Fathers were unequivocal: “…the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Those words can only be taken one way.
- There are more privately-owned guns in America that there are inhabitants. The task of attempting go out and collect them is a fool’s errand.
- These are indeed ‘”weapons of war.” They are in fact our most important militia weapons. It was the specific intent of our Founding Fathers that our civilian populace be armed on an equal footing with any standing army. They have their M4s and we have ours. And by the way we also have even more powerful scoped deer rifles with 500-yard effective range. Millions of them.
- Even if just 3% of the citizenry were to take up arms against your intended tyranny, we would still outnumber the combined strength of the police and military by a substantial margin.
- There are 10.3 million licensed deer hunters in the United States, and around 22 million military veterans.
- Not everyone in law enforcement and the military will go along with your scheme. Many of them will have the backbone to stand against you.
- Any attempt to disarm the citizenry by force will surely be met by a matching resisting force. Aggression begets aggression. It will be you and your minions who will be the first initiators of force, not us.
- Lastly, and most importantly: You hint of “insurrection.” Yea, if you continue using such fighting words and if the fools in Congress do indeed enact such unconstitutional legislation, then by God, you will spark an insurrection of the sort that has not been seen in this land since 1781. There will be a second Civil War, and it will be concluded in a matter of weeks, not years. There will be blood, and that blood will be on the hands of the tyrants, not We The People.
Tyrants deserve to have their bodies dragged through the streets. It happened to Benito Mussolini. It happened to Nicolae Ceaușescu. It happened to Muammar Gaddafi. Be warned: History does not precisely repeat, but it often rhymes.
If you want my guns, sir, then come and take them. But when you send your thugs to my ranch, tell them to bring plenty of body bags and extra grub. Because they’ll certainly need them.
Sincerely, – James Wesley, Rawles
Founder and Senior Editor, SurvivalBlog.com
Author of the novels Patriots and Land of Promise
Source: http://www.rural-revolution.com/2015/12/thems-fightin-words.html
