Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Matthew Kelly, Vice-President of Oath Keepers NYC, Says Assault Weapons Are Not For Killing Deer

Matthew Kelly, Vice-President of the New York City Chapter of Oath Keepers, wrote an article expressing the opinion that citizens should be allowed to have Assault Weapons under the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, not because they need them for hunting but to protect them from tyrannical and despotic politicians. That article, which was posted to the Oath Keepers website on November 15, 2013, read as follows:

"No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer."

So said New York Govenor Andrew Cuomo in his 2013 State of the State speech.

"I love to hunt and I love to be able to share that joy with my kids. But for the life of me, I don't know why the hell people have to have an assault weapon."

So said former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, during a visit to troops in Italy.

Both of these quotes were in reference to discussions about "gun control", which is really a discussion about the Second Amendment. And anyone with an iota of knowledge about the Second Amendment knows it has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting.

Both Cuomo and Panetta are smart and well-educated men. They are far from being ignoramuses. Yet these quotes, linking the Second Amendment to hunting, are patently idiotic.

How to reconcile these two facts, then?

If smart men knowledgeable of the Constitution make such absurdly nonsensical statements about it, what could explain this outside of an intentional desire to deceive a too-often distracted, gullible, and, sadly, ignorant public?

And if they are intent on deceiving the public, then to what end? Clearly it's in service to further "gun control" measures.

And we should be clear that the goal of those who seek to deceive in the name of "public safety" have as their ultimate aim the complete disarmament of the population. One need only look to, say, England; or listen to a younger Eric Holder; or read the words of Senator Dianne Feinstein, to see the end result of this agenda. Framing the argument in terms of "hunting" allows for each incremental, slow turn of the screw until we find that the Second Amendment has been rendered moot.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is, of course, to enable the population at large to arm itself against the encroachment of tyranny from within. If disarmed, all citizens are prey to the whims of their government.

In the modern era - over the past century - we have witnessed hundreds of millions of disarmed civilians slaughtered at the hand of their governments.

Those victims were, of course, dissidents of the government, or otherwise, peronae non gratae.

But the gun-grabbers insist it can't happen here. (Perhaps this is the one area in which they see America as exceptional?) Surely the U.S. government would never demonstrate the kind of hostility towards its own citizens that China or Russia or Nazi Germany did, correct?

We may recall at this point that the ATF, with possible collusion with Eric Holder's Department of Justice, ran guns to Mexican drug cartels with the intent of using the resulting violence - which killed at least two Americans - as propaganda to promote further gun control legislation.

It is also worth remembering that the Internal Revenue Service was brought to account for using its significant power to harass conservative-leaning organizations (i.e. those named or appearing to be affiliated with the grassroots "T.E.A. Party") and deny them their tax exempt status - so much so that it may have swung the 2012 election.

And let's not forget that Eric Holder's Department of Justice was also working with the White House to draft a legal justification for allowing drone strikes on American citizens on American soil.

And then, of course, there's the story of the NSA brazenly ignoring the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and spying on every single American. And the man who blew the whistle on this flagrant abuse of federal power? Chased off to Russia under fear of imprisonment (or worse) the government of the United States.

In conclusion, it is the opinion of this author that those who do not believe the government is hostile towards its citizens are both ignorant of what our government is doing, and naive as to what our government is capable of doing.

Contrary to the cries of the politicians and the compliant mewing of the credulous, the point of gun control is not public safety. It is to protect the rulers from the ruled. We acquiesce to their agenda at our considerable peril.

No comments:

Post a Comment