"Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government
inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile
to liberty."—George Washington
By Michael Snyder, on December 28th, 2015
GUN WARS THE FORCE RETAKEN
President Obama cries during gun violence speech
A teary-eyed President Obama announced plans to expand background checks and make other changes to America’s gun rules. Once again, Obama used the dreaded pen and phone to use executive action, which of course circumvents Congress and once again fuels allegations of executive overreach.
While most of what he said sounded like the whaa whaa whap sounds heard from parents in a Charlie Brown cartoon, there was a part of his speech that stood out for me because it centered around constitutional rights and how we have somehow accepted over time the idea of surrendering rights for safety.
Obama stated:
“We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society.”
What he fails to point out is the reason we are paying this price for living in a so-called civilized society is that we have been fed a diet of fear and thus we see a constitution with conditions that go from reasonable to complete negation of civil liberties.
Obama seems to feel that the people will allow for the weakening of things like the second amendment in order to feel some sort of renewed sense of security.
President Obama wants us to believe that we take comfort in hearing the same worn out and tired tropes of how all of these provisions have somehow prevented “who knows” how many terror attacks.
The “who knows” remark can be a vague form of negative logic, for those who are awake but for the police state it is a doublespeak euphemism for a consensus mind numbing where the people can assume that all of their so-called foiled plots are reasons for constitutional tinkering.
I don’t want reduce the various American tragedies to mere statistics – but they are very telling of how afraid we have become and how we now accept government overreach as a way of life.
There have been only 38 Americans that have been killed on American soil by radicalized Islamic terrorism since 9/11.
While that is 38 too many, it is a drop in the bucket compared to those killed in car accidents or those that have died as result of intestinal illnesses brought on by eating in restaurants.
The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls; most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack or even these first person shooter events.
I know that it is hard to persuade a constantly re-frightened American public that the constitution should not be weakened because of gun crimes and terrorism, but the facts are very telling of how easy it has been for the Obama Administration to mislead us on the idea that we need more surveillance and strict gun laws to prevent terrorism and mass shootings.
At the centerpiece of Obama’s plan is a more sweeping definition of gun dealers that the administration hopes will expand the number of gun sales subject to background checks. At gun shows, websites and flea markets, sellers often skirt that requirement by declining to register as licensed dealers, but officials said new federal guidance would clarify that it applies to anyone “in the business” of selling firearms.
Almost all of our homegrown lone gunmen and terrorist shooters trend on Google and their notoriety is pushed through the newsfeeds of Facebook to the point that everyone is under the impression we are breeding trigger-happy unstable miscreants in need of control.
The Obama Administration has now finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.
While no one wants an unstable person with a gun, the definition of someone who is “mentally ill’ is so broad and expansive. Most of us probably assume a mentally ill person is a violent person. However, a mentally ill person can also be someone overcome by post traumatic stress disorder or one who suffers from high anxiety or one who is depressed. Why should these people who show no indication of intent to harm others be discriminated against and lose their right to own a firearm?
America falsely believes the easy scapegoat is the so-called terrorists, the mentally ill or perhaps even violent T.V. or video games, but the reality is that most of these horrible events are coming from within the political and military complex and are somehow slipping by the national security infrastructure that we have been told is there to protect us from such events.
In fact, if you look at the track record, since all of these so-called safeguards have been employed, we have seen an increase in these “tragic” and “senseless” events and thus, we have become trapped in an unsafe environment.
Regardless of what you are hearing, it is becoming more apparent that these shootings are less random and are actively being planned in order to traumatize us into thinking the state can only protect us with their militarized police forces and our own guns and self-defense skills can’t neutralize an active shooter.
Human sustainability far outweighs the political sphere of influence and yet the political discussions go on incessantly in a country that seems to fixate its tiresome national dialogue about our lack of leadership, our need for more national security and the right to defend one’s own family and property.
The Second Amendment argument should not even be argued. There should be no infringement on the right to bear arms and yet it’s now an issue up for debate, all because of a number of “senseless acts.” Do we not see these shooting incidents as expedient for gun control agendas being proposed by the few and not by the majority who know safety of property and family is a priority in times of crisis?
The most devastating truth facing us in the event of national crisis is that urban areas are the most unsafe places on the planet and the convenience we cherish will become our undoing as the aftermath of a crisis inevitably leads to civil unrest and the armed populace that is constitutional becomes the armed horde who can be your enemy in the face of all resource depletion.
We know now that 2016 is the year designated for “full spectrum” operations, as requiring the military to prepare for internal campaigns against radicalized American citizens.
There will be if necessary, “full spectrum operations in the coming two decades according to the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 – 2028, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, dated 19 August 2010.
With this document we learn that the plan for the United States in a major crisis is not for anyone’s benefit but for the continuity of government.
Police and military units are training to deal specifically with urban uprisings and civil unrest because emergency services planners understand that America’s metropolitan death zones, which is military speak for major cities, will be completely devoid of law & order.
These agencies are already planning on the American people to turn into gun toting outlaws if there happens to be a government decapitation, meaning that if a crisis is so dire that the government can’t function, the country will be divided into regions and governed like military territories.
The Obama Administration has demonstrated with all of its political doublespeak that the entire national security infrastructure he defends and lies about has done nothing to insure the safety of the American people.
It is also important to note that no campaigns for disarming Americans or even weakening of the second amendments for stricter background checks will make us any safer in scenarios of national crisis.
All of the lame arguments we are having now for political reasons will amount to nothing but affluent in a future for America that seems to be evolving into a repressive despotism with a militarized foothold that with the help of Executive Orders, will create a battlefield in our backyard.
While the warnings of police state are dismissed by those who have not been in one, it is evident what we are seeing transpire, from deadly force in the open market place, to riots and civil unrest are pretext to a turn in the evolution of how law enforcement restrains the populace and secures the peace.
It must be reiterated that the evolution of the country’s views on social issues are right in your face and if you are not paying attention, you may find yourself in a world more foreign and hostile than you can imagine.
Obama says to all of us that his new gun policies do not infringe on second amendment rights, but we need to understand it does begin the weakening process of the rights of the citizens to bear arms and avoid government entanglements.
We know that the agenda of government is to disarm America, and surprisingly, you may want to wait and realize that the next administration and the administration after that will conduct the gradual process of dismantling the constitution in order to pave the way for a new globalist treaty that we know will be enforced by the year 2030, if not before then.
If we disarm the people or make it harder to obtain a firearm, there will be limited resistance to a hostile takeover of a sophisticated tyrannical criminal element that uses organized crime to sustain their full spectrum control of everything we do.
We all know that in a war or in a crisis, it is a good strategy to disarm your enemies.
