"NRA losing its firepower"? Who's going to protect the gun grabbers now?

To: Tom Teepen, Cox Newspapers
Via Email: teepencolumn@earthlink.net

re: "NRA is losing its firepower," Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Found here.

"NRA losing its firepower"? Who's going to protect you now?

Dear Tom,

I've read your anti-firearm sermons for some years now, wherein you faithfully regurgitate the Brady Bunch's advocacy of citizen disarmament. Because of this, I understand the futility of arguing the point with you.

But since we have now passed through the looking glass with an anti-firearm president and a supportive absolute majority in Congress, where the old political verities no longer apply and you no longer have the NRA and GOP to protect you, let me explain the new rules of the game. As you say, "the NRA is losing its power." This should worry you. You say:

"(P)olling has found for some time that majorities -- often including most gun owners -- support a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases, limits on the number of firearms that can be bought at any one time, outlawing assault-style weapons, closing the loophole that lets buyers at gun shows duck background checks."

Uh huh. And if polling found majorities of the populace willing to strip you of your 1st Amendment right to pen anti-firearm rights bilge, would that mean anything? You would claim, and rightly so, that the Constitution codified your natural right of free speech. Let me clue you in Tom. We don't give a rodent's hindparts what kind of "majority opinion" you muster. We're done compromising our God given, inalienable right to arms.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you endorsed the Brady Campaign's craftily named lie called "the gun show loophole," you must not have looked beyond the Brady press release to understand the naked theft of liberty it truly represents. As Sarah Brady has said elsewhere, it means "universal background checks for EVERY gun sold in this country."

She says, "sold," but the bill will read "transferred," in order, they will say, "to prevent bartering." We will have to get the federal government's permission to give our grandpa's shotgun to our son. This represents the federal seizure of control over every firearm transfer. It also means de facto universal gun registration. Not even King George the Third was so grasping and the Founders shot at his troops for much less.

This is throwing to the wind the previous legal fig leaf used to justify regulating gun dealers, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Now even the private, intrastate transfer of firearms will be under the federal boot.

In addition, you say with one breath that Obama will not confiscate anyone's arms and then in the next you pimp the confiscationist ban on semi-automatic rifles. You can't have it both ways. And with the NRA and the GOP swept aside, we no longer can count on political protection. If politics fails us, how then will we defend our traditional rights to property and liberty?

I'll tell you. Americans who consider their right to arms to be God given and inalienable will resist these bills if they become law, by armed civil disobedience if necessary. Is that what you had in mind?

You are right in one respect. The NRA and the GOP no longer stand in your confiscationist way. You've got us surrounded, you poor fools. Go ahead and pass these unconstitutional laws and watch what happens.

You'd better pray to whatever god you believe in that we don't adopt Bill Clinton's rules of war against the Serbians and consider it legitimate to target the press that supports the military effort of our opponent when the raiding parties you advocate come to our doors. Because even when democracy becomes tyranny, we still get to vote. We just won't use voting booths to send the message.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com