🚀 go-pugleaf

Number 10 of the Communist rules for revolution captured at Dusseldorf 
Germany  in 1919 reads...
  10. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to
confiscating them and leaving the population helpless...


  Author -  SnipeUNblu@aol.com

                                (Guns, Freedom and Collective Guilt)

  Imagine going to a car lot to buy a car and being told you need a Federal
permit to purchase or legally posses a motor vehicle. Laughing you ask "what's
the punch line?"  The situation is turned over to the manager who informs you
that because of the probability that you will drink and drive or otherwise
abuse your access to a car, laws have been passed to bar you from having one in
the first place. It doesn't have to be a car, it could be a knife as in
Britain, camouflage clothing as in some African nations or even gasoline as it
(Could) be used for illegal purposes. 
  Your automatically suspect and punished because of other people who break
laws, if you grasp this concept you grasp the fundamentals of collective guilt
and the larger concept of collectivism. 
  Is collectivism an American concept? Certainly not! Collectivism denies
individual rights. America was founded on the idea of preserving individual
rights and liberties. These rights are spelled out in the first ten Amendments
to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. 
  Even before the American colonists defied their King in defense of their
individual rights and sovereignty, nearly 100 years before they took their
stand for freedom at Salem, Lexington, and Concord an exactly opposite
philosophy had been born in the teeming overcrowded cities of France and
England. This philosophy held that there was no such thing as individual
self-determination, rights or freedom; that individual human beings, like ants
and termites exist solely to labor and sacrifice mindlessly for the
"collective" good. That the individual's labor, life and even body exists
solely to sustain the nest. In the mid-to-late 17th century the advocates of
this philosophy of "anthill society" called themselves "societarians"
  Somewhere in the 18th century the "societarians" took to calling themselves
"equalitarians" in England and "egalitarians" in France. In 1840 an
equalitarian named Goodwyn Barmby renamed egalitarianism "Communism", the same
Communism we know today. This philosophy is still with us today and has changed
names over the years from "societarianism" to "equalitarianism" to "Communism".
 When Communism wore out it's welcome in America it changed names again to
"progressive" until finally the Communists re-defined and took as their new
name, "liberal". 
  Whatever name they use they all seek an anthill society rooted in
collectivism. Of course the elite of these societies have always, because of
their understanding of this "humanitarian" philosophy lived far better off and
with all the privilege of the totalitarian rulers that they really are. 
We see some of this in politicians who vote to ban your gun rights yet are
issued weapons permits that are denied to the average citizen. 
  Today in America, collectivism has slithered into our thinking to the point
that many philosophic collectivist ideas are taken to be wholly American in
origin. 

  The best example of this is the gun control debate and the collective guilt
concept that you must not own a gun because of a gang member's misuse, an
immigrant's misuse or your neighbor's misuse of a firearm. The precedent that
collective guilt sets in regard to freedom in general is truly freighting.
  America already has tough laws that bar felons, mentally unstable, drug
addicts and others who are proven to society they are not trustworthy with
firearms. Do we convict individuals for crimes committed as was the original
intent of law, (I am free/at liberty to own weapons of my choice so long as I
don't infringe upon the rights of my fellow citizens) or do we really want a
collectivist society (some have abused their rights/liberties by using guns to
commit crimes so all people (YOU!) must be punished and bared from owning
firearms) where your guilty and face penalty because you (might) commit a crime
with a firearm? 
  This is the question citizens should ask themselves when voting and before
endorsing "Saturday night special" bans or even "assault weapon" bans. It is
openly admitted by the "junk" gun banners that "it" ( whatever law they want
enacted at any given time) is a symbolic step. A symbolic step to what?  Total
gun prohibition? 
  Putting two and two together it does not take a rocket scientist to see that
by the time we get to total collectivist society we will have long ago been
denied our Second Amendment rights to defend ourselves from the slavery that is
collectivism...


  The Following quote is absolutely false.

According to Chris Knox (Neal Knox's son), the quote originally appeared in
Machine Gun News, June 1991, Volume 5, Number 1, page 6. in the column
"RAFFICA" by Dan Shea, Column 2, Paragraph 2.



  "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned of course. We must use whatever
means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our
task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would
resist us have been totally disarmed."  
                                             Sarah Brady 1994 National
Educator.



PS, keep America free, buy an assault weapon!


If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek
not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds
you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye
were our country men.  (1776)
-- Samuel Adams


Re: the Gun debate 
("Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when  they
discuss it freely."  - Lord Macaulay, 1830)


When Gun banners proclaim the law as just reason to disarm.....


"...a strict observance of the written laws is doubtless ONE of the high duties

of a good citizen, but it is not THE HIGHEST.  The laws of necessity, of 

self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher 

obligation.  To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law,

would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who

are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

Thomas Jefferson,September 20, 1810 

 >>

 >>