Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Incremental Civilian Disarmament: Strip-Tease of the Liberties

A gun in the wrong hands:
Chuck Schumer, seen here compensating for some hidden shortcoming (but not for all of his obvious ones).

When the NRA and I agree on legislation,” oozed the incarnate glob of viscous evil known as Senator Chuck Schumer, “you know that it's going to get through, become law, and do some good.”

Schumer was referring to the measure passed in the House yesterday (June 13) -- by an unrecorded voice vote! -- that will expand the scope and funding of a national database used in background checks of prospective gun buyers.

The Quisling outfit called the National Rifle Association, ever eager to see that patently unconstitutional gun laws are faithfully enforced, supported the measure. Gun Owners of America -- which, like the estimable Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is a national gun rights group worthy of that description* -- did not. As GOA's Erich Pratt told the New York Times, this system is designed to force “law-abiding people ... to prove their innocence to a bureaucrat before they exercise their constitutional rights” to purchase and own a firearm.

The putative purpose of the measure is to prevent deranged people and other “mental defectives” like the Virginia Tech mass murderer Seung-Hui Cho from buying firearms. But this law, like every other gun law, will give criminals of that sort an additional competitive advantage over the law-abiding.

This, Schumer would insist, falls under the heading of doing “good.”

One must keep in mind that from Schumer's perspective, which differs from that of the Khmer Rouge only in relatively trivial matters of detail, doing “good” involves denuding individuals of their privacy and the means to resist the government.

To understand more fully Schumer's passion to reduce Americans to servitude, it's useful to picture him not as a Senator, freshly groomed and swaddled in an expensive, well-tailored suit, but rather as a grimy, unshaven patron of a malodorous strip club, his beady eyes fixed with unblinking, predatory lust on the hapless Chinese immigrant girl forced to perform for his amusement (her career as an “exotic dancer” being written into the contract with the Snakehead that brought her to the U.S.).

As the dancer, trembling from the effort to suppress her disgust, discards each layer of clothing, Schumer (the version in our example) becomes more agitated, his illicit appetites growing more insistent. He will not relent until that unfortunate girl is deprived of any modesty or decency, fully exposed to his inspection and subject to his whims.

In this respect, Schumer is not significantly different from most representatives of our political class, irrespective of the political brand name under which they conduct their assault on our liberties. In dealing with Americans who insist on defending their rights, Schumer emits a dense musk of unfiltered malice; his arrogance is palpable, as is his desire to reduce Americans to helotry. During the 1995 congressional hearings into the Waco Holocaust, Schumer gave the impression that he was disappointed that the federal mass murder at Mt. Carmel was a one-off event, rather than the opening shots of a campaign to annihilate gun owners nation-wide.

Schumer's demeanor and tactics in that hearing left me with the strong impression that he was somehow the product of a genetic experiment combining the salient traits of Soviet gulag master Lazar Kaganovich with those of the equally repellent Roland Freisler, the histrionic Communist-turned National Socialist who presided over Nazi Germany's “People's Court”:

At the risk of sounding reactionary, I must say that any legislation that would receive Schumer's approval should be rejected for that reason alone. But this is just one of numerous reasons why the bill passed by the House yesterday must be defeated.

Schumer's ideological ancestor Lazar Kaganovich, the "Wolf of the Kremlin" (left) and Nazi Judge Roland Freisler (below, right), whose demeanor and comportment uncannily matched those of New York's senior Senator.

The purpose of the Second Amendment, as I've pointed out before, is not merely to protect a clearly articulated individual right to armed self-defense, although this is certainly one of its important function. Its central purpose, I believe, is to make it clear that in the republic the Founders created (how I wish it were still in operation), the government did not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

The people who wrote that Amendment, we should never forget, were pretty much the same group that took part in history's noblest act of sedition by signing a document setting out some of the conditions under which it was proper and necessary to “alter or abolish” the government that ruled them. The right to keep and bear arms must be viewed in that context: When the time comes for an oppressive government to be confronted and, if necessary, abolished, the people must be armed.

(A quick digression: Why is sedition – a word directly related to “separation” or “secession” -- considered a crime? It seems to me that when a government attempts to criminalize sedition, becoming a seditionist is the moral duty of every citizen.)

On the other hand, the reason why the Regime is intent on collecting as much information as it can on law-abiding gun owners is to make gun confiscation possible. This is theoretical only as it applies to the Regime's actions domestically: As I've documented elsewhere, the Regime has eagerly conducted gun confiscation programs as part of “peacekeeping” missions in Haiti, Somalia, and elsewhere. We shouldn't forget the effort to disarm victims of Hurricane Katrina.

And those who don't think that our rulers are capable of systematically destroying their disarmed victims really should acquaint themselves with the Federal Government's treatment of American Indians during the 19th Century. Once again, we're not discussing this issue in an abstract, theoretical realm.

Schumer and his loathsome ilk seek to strip us of all of our rights. They would love to denude us in a single paroxysm of violence, of course, but from their perspective a forced strip-tease works just as well. The outcome would be the same in either case.

*The original version of this essay inexplicably, and perhaps unforgivably, omitted mention of JPFO. I sincerely regret that oversight, and thank Henry Bowman for correcting it.

Make sure to check in at The Right Source.


Unknown said...

I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, I suspect that, just as many people think they are "free" because they live in a "democracy," many gun owners think they are free just because they get to own guns.

Habeas corpus, posse comitatus, and the Bill of Rights have all disappeared, and plenty of gun owners have actually cheered these developments. Sure, they might revolt if the government attempts gun confiscation. But it is more likely that any revolution in America will be started by largely unarmed rioters in the cities, not by rural and suburban gun owners.

zach said...

Gun control is indeed very foolish and morally repugnant. I am pleased by the GOA's and NRA's progress in State legislatures, where gun control is being scaled back. It looks like state level assault weapons bans are falling out of favor and that concealed carry reciprocity might be valid in all states like a driver's license. Some states have even considered doing away with Concealed weapons permits all together, letting people carry without any restrictions. I wish it were possible that the Parker case in D.C. could get rid of federal gun control as its manifestly unconstitutional. I'd love to see 3000 ATF agents unemployed.

Anonymous said...

GOA is not the only gun organization with gonads. JPFO continues to be extremely critical of the NRA. It has recently released a video (The Gang) detailing the sordid history of the ATF and its criminal tactics. The video was recently shown at Red's Trading Post in Twin Falls, ID.

Organizations such as JPFO, GOA, and SAF should be supported. I think GOA is listed as a lobbying group, but JPFO and, I think, SAF, are 501(c) organizations, so contributions to such are typically tax-deductible.

And, I would not stop with 3000 ATF agents. I would add all TSA employees and perhaps throw in all local-police SWAT members, for starters.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever seen Leviathan giving up any ground its gained? Anyone? Oh it may take a step back, after two forward, but you'd be a fool to think that you're really doing anything more than buying time. They're going to come after everyone and anyone who even questions them. Guns or no guns. I'm just waiting for the masks to finally come off completely rather than this dragged out dog and pony show.