By Gary DeMar
When some loudmouth spouted off about how he was going to do so-and-so to this guy or that guy, a guy who was really tough would often say, “You and who else?” or “You and what army?” An opposing force is only as effective as its ability to win battles.
“In the waning days of WW II, during a discussion of the future of Eastern Europe, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill cautioned Joseph Stalin to consider the views of the Vatican. To this the Soviet leader responded, ‘How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?’”
It’s not enough to make a threat; you’ve got to be able to back it up with force.
The majority of Democrats and the anti-Second Amendment bullies have a problem. While Congress may pass the Feinstein gun bill (unlikely), tens of millions of gun owners will ignore it. They will engage in an act of civil disobedience, probably for the first time in their lives. Of course, they will not see it as disobedience but an act of faithfulness to a document that birthed this great nation.
They’ve seen films like Schindler’s List, The Killing Fields, and The Pianist. They know what can happen when governments that claim to have our best interests at heart enact laws to "protect” us by confiscating weapons. "It’s for your own good.” Where have we heard that before?
Millions of Americans don’t trust their government. It’s not that they believe the United States will turn into Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia in the next decade or two. Gun owners in America will keep and bear arms as a symbol of protest against a government that spends their money into oblivion, propagandizes their children in government schools, and taxes their wages and property in a hundred different ways while their lawmakers retire on government pensions fit for kings. It’s no accident that the most prosperous counties in America are those surrounding Washington, DC.
Engaged American voters detest the hypocrisy of government officials who create laws for everybody else and exempt themselves. The Feinstein gun prohibition bill exempts government officials. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked by Jason Mattera, “In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?,” the mayor was tongue-tied.
The more laws are passed restricting gun ownership, the more guns are manufactured and sold.
Dr. Gary North writes:
“I do not think the people who have become active on this issue in the last month are likely to be willing to surrender their guns unless there are policemen at the door with a warrant. There will not be. There are not enough policemen to enforce anything like a comprehensive gun ban. Furthermore, there will be resistance in smaller counties, in both the South and Midwest, to any such enforcement. Police chiefs do not want to antagonize the local voters.”
The battle over guns might revive governmental localism as states and counties stand on the sovereign ground of the principle of the interdiction of the lesser magistrate. The lesser-magistrate principle states that a civil government that has less authority (state government) than a higher magistrate (national government), the lesser magistrate has the right to oppose unconstitutional or unjust laws of the higher authority.
This post was modified from its original form on 29 Jan, 11:34
Well a lot of this is likely true since we are seeing push back already from some states, sheriffs, and police chiefs as well as clear intentions of many NY residents to ignore Cuomo's overreach. It is also the height of irony that an administration that has sued the state of AZ, that was essentially using a state law to enforce the the federal immigrations laws the feds refused to enforce, and taken that suit all the way to the Supreme Court to try having the state and local authorities enforce this type of federal law. What is being overlooked, however, is this administration's actions with all parts of the Federal bureaucracy to gun up like HHS just did with thousands of automatic weapons and ammo along with the things going on in parts of the military that indicate plans for dealing with domestic discord. To be sure the latter has some risks for the administration since it isn't clear how much overall support that type action has among most of the military, but the problem is, while this move may ultimately be fatal for the "progressives" and ruling elites objectives, it also may be fatal for a lot of people and for US stability and security as well. We are moving into areas of more churn and chaos with the moves now being done by Dear Leader Obama, his Demagogue Party, the ruling elites, and their "progressive" support base in academia, media, union leadership, non profit organizations, and interest groups.
I meant Homeland Insecurity rather than HHS although even HHS agencies and the SS Administration have purchased firearms and ammo but not that number of weapons. There waa an incident reported last year where the Department of Educations SWAT team raided a guy's house looking for his ex-wife who allegedly had an outstanding student loan. There seems to be a lot of "police power" in agencies that wouldn't appear to need that much power to perform their functions.