What the "Assault Weapons" ban really was.

The Omnibus Crime Bill, a.k.a. the "assault weapons ban" is one of the most insidious and deliberately misunderstood pieces of legislation I have ever seen. Its deception starts with its very name: "Omnibus Crime Bill"...Omnibus, meaning all-encompassing...which it is not. "Crime Bill"...perhaps only if you view it as an assault on the Constitution, is the only "Crime" to which it can be attached.

In it are a bunch of restrictions on freedom. Bans of ownership of property. It is a Bill of Attainder by definition, also illegal within the Constitution. It makes criminals out of regular people like you and me by simply making a certain taste in equipment (which harms no one) a FELONY. Puts it on a par with things like robbery, rape, and murder. Mere POSSESSION of EQUIPMENT becomes a CRIME because someone MIGHT use that piece of EQUIPMENT for a crime. Another insidious concept is that research showed BEFORE THE BILL WAS WRITTEN and has PROVEN OUT after this thing became law, that the very "assault weapons" this bill made illegal were generally NOT used in CRIMES. The few cases outlined by the media were IT. That's ALL they had. But it was enough, obviously, to scare the majority of the population, people like you and me, into thinking we had an epidemic on our hands.

Gun owners, gun nuts, gun enthusiasts, whatever you want to call us (and I am one of them), like our toys. Like car enthusiasts, boat enthusiasts, jet ski enthusiasts, we like bigger, better, faster, more expensive, rarer, more powerful, etc. But that's the joy of living in this country. You could HAVE your tastes, without anyone telling you what you could or couldn't own, as long as you didn't go around committing crimes with them.

For many years, the Gun Control people were stymied by the fact that our very Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. By the people. Period. Not by the states. Not a "collective right". But many of us were taught differently. We were told that the Second Amendment was a "collective right of the state" or for "Militia use only", etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Why? Because the issue is not about firearms or anything else. It is about freedom. It is about Liberty and Justice for ALL...not just those people who are good at lobbying, or debating, or know all the propaganda tactics for getting what they want at YOUR expense and the expense of your neighbors. For ALL.

The Assault Weapons Bill was a vehicle by which the social fascists, disguised as liberals, told the largest voting constituency in the country: "HA! We took your toys away! And you can't do anything about it because it's the LAW!"

The real issue is not and never was crime. It never was about the cosmetics of a piece of metal stuck on the end of the barrel of a firearm doing one thing instead of another. The real issue, pure and simple, is about control through the use of the Govermnent as Enforcer.

The assault weapons ban was a major victory for the social fascists (they call themselves liberals but don't let them fool you...they only advocate freedoms THEY want; They couldn't care less about YOURS. Go ahead. Look for yourself around you. It's finally gotten to the point where even the thick-headed sheeple are starting to bleat).

The issue is as simple as a schoolyard bully having the backing of the principal of the school to continue his bullying because "it keeps things in control."

It's all about control. The US government has become a giant Control Freak. Wanting to take charge of our lives, from cradle to grave. From welfare to abortion to gun control. All of the issues have one major theme: THE GOVERNMENT WANTS CONTROL OF THE DECISIONS CONSTITUTIONALLY RESERVED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.

Agencies who help the government in its goals tend to flourish, enjoying subtle bias and freedom from harrassment by government agencies. Agencies who speak out tend to get audited by the IRS in "random" audits. I wonder what the bell curve is like for the statistical probabilities there, hmm?

Government agents abuse their powers. Right up to the Ex-Lying-Sack-In-Chief Slick Willie. Pulling FBI files on his political enemies? Pay attention people. Social facism is at work against you, its more common name: Political Correctness. Chairman Mao would be proud.

And now we have broad new FBI powers. Notice that the media has had nary a fanfare as these powers passed into law? It's not in their best interest to report such things. The "But We're At War" only goes so far...ESPECIALLY when the measures taken are already KNOWN to be INEFFECTIVE in preventing or combatting the kind of terrorist actions already perpetrated on us.

We were primed for this by our leaders saying "Well, when we enjoy the freedoms that we have in this country, it allows for this sort of thing to occur."

IF we had enjoyed REAL freedom in this country, some of the passengers of those airliners, according to their personal tastes, would have been ARMED. And the individuals with box cutters would have been SHOT DEAD, and maybe the plane would have gotten a few bullet holes and made an emergency landing. Yes, people might have gotten hurt. Yes, it would have gotten awful publicity. But I don't think I need to dwell on how much would have been saved had THOSE FREEDOMS been intact.

Throughout the history of our country, We have enjoyed FEWER terrorist operations, FEWER social problems, BECAUSE of our freedoms, not in SPITE of them. The places where freedom is more severely restricted are our top danger spots. Like airports...and more recently, schools. Places that have greater freedom seem to have fewer problems of any kind...ever wonder why?

Because people who are left alone to mind their own business generally do not start trouble. It is when do-gooder busy-bodies decide that someone minding their own business is "offensive" and then try to enforce THEIR opinions upon that harmless someone that the trouble starts. And then the instigators have the audacity to be surprised and call themselves "victims."

This problem has been ratcheting up for some time now. In fact, it has been so subtle I can't tell exactly when it started. Before I was born, surely. But one thing I DO know:

The EXCUSE the government is using to take away our freedoms is as much of a lie as the EXCUSE the gun control people used to take away our guns. Notice they went after the guns before they went after the freedoms. You should all take a close look at world history, notably times where Gun Control was implemented. Please note the similarity in the arguments FOR that Gun Control: Crime, Protect the Children, etc.etc. All noble causes which people naturally advocate, but the result was genocide. Where were all those do-gooders and people who advocated lower crime and protecting the children when the CRIMINALS were doing the KILLING OF THE CHILDREN?

Let me tell you a little about War. My parents were participants in World War II. There was rationing. There were posters that said "Loose Lips Sink Ships...keep troop movements secret."

Because they WEREN'T kept secret from US. WE were the government. Our Military was made up of Volunteers. Enemy spies had a hard time in this country NOT because we had a heavy-handed Intelligence department, but because our own citizenry loved our country enough and was smart enough to know whom to trust and whom not to. It was OUR perogative as citizens. NOT the dictation of the government.

When a society is self-policing, it is far more civilized than a society which must BE policed from the outside. When a society is self-policing, there is much less of an adversarial relationship between the society and its government. The government runs at the permission of the society, not society running at the permission of the government.

Take this simple test: Do you believe you control the government? If so, would you pay them, in the form of your taxes, for the crappy service you receive? Try paying them what you think they deserve. Did they arrest you?

Are you dependent upon the government for 1) Welfare, 2) Subsidies, 3) Protective Tariffs?

Whose permission do you ask when you want to buy things the government thinks are dangerous? Why?

Are you getting the picture now? The Control Freak Government is clamping down because they are OUT of control. And it's a cycle that is going to get worse.

Oh yes, and the Assault Weapons ban? You want to talk about back-door legislation? Try this one on for size. Before US Vs. Emerson, the last landmark Second Amendment case was US Vs. Miller, regarding the fact that Miller was in possession of a sawed-off shotgun. It was ruled that the Second Amendment didn't protect possession of a sawed-off shotgun because it could not be sufficiently proven that such a weapon could be used in combat, as part of the Militia.

So, the Assault Weapons ban? Deliberately BANS all weapons MOST suited for combat (those of which that are left, after the best ones started being heavily regulated back in 1934...but that's a whole other rant) as part of the Militia. See what I mean? So really, what is the story here? You cannot have it both ways.

Government is not about regulating people's personal tastes. The moment it stepped over the boundary of those responsibilities enumerated by the constitution into places it DID not BELONG, it became a Tyranny.

So now you know why people say "I love my country but I fear my government". War is a great excuse for making a police state. Just ask Adolf, Benito and Josef. They had Gun Control and Homeland Security too.

I'd like to add that all of us who have to use stupid 10-round magazines instead of the hi-caps (whose prices for the pre-bans have reached an astronomical 700% over original retail for USED), you must thank Slick Willie for that incredible piece of legislation.

Just exactly how a piece of equipment that is "evil" in the hands of you or me becomes "good" in the hands of a duly designated government thug is a process I would like to see the machinations of in great detail. And once it happens, I'd like to only own those "good" weapons the government has.

But that's not going to happen. But it was a thought.

DG

The idiots make the argument that the 2nd doesn't cover a persons right to self defense with a gun, it talks about the people as a whole being able to form a popular militia to oppose enemies of the free state.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I'm reading this correctly, I disagree.

1st Amendment: "...the right of the people..."

2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people..."

4th Amendment: "...the right of the people..."

9th Amendment: "...retained by the people..."

10th Amendment: "...reserved...to the people..."

Notice the similarity and yet ONLY in the 2nd Amendment do gun grabbers claim that "the people" means a group and yet in all other uses of the term, it is undeniably an individual right. The Founders knew that words meant something and were VERY careful in the use and consistency in meaning of those words. The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right just as the right to speak freely is an individual right or an individual's right against illegal search and seizure.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.