This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Open Letter To Liberals
Favoring Gun Confiscation
by Liz Michael I know a lot of liberals. Hell, some of my best
friends are liberals. And to those liberals, who so often favor gun control and
gun confiscation, I have just one simple question....
Have you lost your bloody minds?
German gun control didn't begin under the
Nazis. It began in large measure because of the Nazis. They did not demand it,
though. It was being aimed AT them. Yes. You heard me right. Check your history.
The political establishment of the Weimar Republic wanted gun control to control
undesirables in the population. To disarm them. They all thought it was a peachy
idea.
It didn't work. German gun control was aimed at
the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, the radical parties of the day. Because the
National Socialists weren't about to obey laws that were not in their interest,
gun control only wound up disarming what little armory was already in public
hands.
What happened? One of the groups who refused to
disarm ultimately took over the country. And there was absolutely nothing their
opponents could do about it. Because they were without an army and without many
firearms.
Now, the Weimar Republic is not a direct
comparison to today's United States. But fast forward to today. There are a lot
of people, most of them liberals of some type, who say one of the major reasons
they want to disarm Americans is because of guns in the hands of "them
crazy rednecks", like me. (Even though I'm Black, Indian and Jewish) Well,
let's assume for a minute you get your wish. Let's say that HCI and the Brady
bunch get everything they want in their political agenda passed into law. Who is
and is not willing to obey those laws is of prime strategic importance to the
liberal agenda.
Under a gun confiscation, who will likely
surrender arms and who will utterly refuse to, cuts sharply across political
lines. The liberals will probably cooperate, for the "good of the
children", or "the environment", or whatever pabulum of the day
they're being fed. Maybe a few radical anarchists won't. But most of your
mainstream Democrats will comply. After all, they TRUST the government to take
care of them.
However, the groups who will not are the
conservatives and the libertarians. The conservatives, who prominently feature
the Religious Right caucus. The Patrick Buchanan anti-immigration caucus. The
anti-gay caucus. And the libertarians who plain and simply represent the
"leave me the hell alone" caucus. The libertarians who would if they
had their way gut as many liberal government programs as they possibly could. Of course, the criminals will not comply. Not
ever. They never do. They will, of course, profit from the illicit traffic from
those who feel the need to have a weapon without the permission of a government
bureaucrat or local police official. But I'm not really talking about the
criminals here.
So what would happen under strict gun control
is that the political groups most likely to be armed to the teeth are the
conservatives and the libertarians, and the Religious Right and Buchananites
with them. To a distinctly disproportionate degree.
Now, if you are a liberal, ask yourself this
question.... do you really feel comfortable about that. Do you really WANT the
conservatives to have significantly more guns than you? Because that group of
armed individuals will be able to throw out any election they wish: you all
complain Bush stole the 2000 election. Well, son, under strict gun control, you
ain't seen NOTHIN' yet!!!
And they would likely, in the case of an armed
insurrection of any serious import, be the people who take over the government.
Either that, or a very organized somewhat fascist element within the government
will defeat them, and take power themselves. Where would the liberals fit in the
picture? Disarmed, with no power, no agenda and no voice, with their pet
programs likely in shambles, with both camps of a civil war who hate them.
The SINGLE STUPIDEST thing that liberals could
do for their causes is pass gun control. They would be writing their own death
warrant, just as the Weimar Republic did.
I reiterate the question. Does anyone here want
their activist movement fully disarmed, and completely trusting the other side
in power without the check and balance of the potential for armed revolt?
Let me guess: some of you reading this right
now, are thinking with your gut. And your gut is telling you: "the more I
read of your essays, Liz, the more I see the need for strict gun control. So
people like YOU won't have guns." People like ME won't have guns.
That's a real belly laugh.
People like me, understand, as Mao understood,
that power flows from the barrel of a gun. So people like me will NEVER not have
guns.
Your gut feeling is the same gut feeling the
Weimar Republic had about the Nazis. I'm not going to challenge your feeling. If
you understand my politics, REALLY, it's in fact, nearly laughable, as someone
like Hitler or Stalin is practically the diametric opposite of myself.. But
let's go with your feeling for a sec. Say I am the danger. Me and my
"conservative libertarian anarchist radical antigovernment whatever"
thugs are going to march down and destroy America. So what then.... "WE
GOTTA TAKE EVERYBODY'S GUNS!", you say. And let's pretend for a bit that
you manage to get legislation to that effect. Who will obey it and who won't?
I'll tell ya, who, my liberal friends. You will
obey it. The liberals will dutifully obey.
I won't obey it. The libertarians won't. The
radicals won't. The conservatives won't. The religious right won't. The
gayhaters won't. You may think they will but you don't know them like I do.
I won't obey it because in the end, in addition
to saving my own ass, and the asses of people who think like me, I may have to
save YOUR asses as well. Who will have more power, liberal friend, at
that point? Who will have more power? The liberals or the conservatives? The
left or the right? Because at that point, my side, and whoever happen to be my
allies, whatever you think of my side, will have all the guns. Yes, the
government will have them, too. But do you really think that the government
agencies with the most arms give a rat's ass about the liberal agenda? Do you
REALLY think the GOVERNMENT... do you really think that government agents at
this point in time, care about benign things such as gay rights, women's rights,
racial minority rights and human dignity?
At that point in time, the only real battle
left will be between the government and the conservatives and their allies.
Unless, the conservatives take the government and consolidate absolute power,
which Hitler did. So you either will have a government dominated by the
conservatives, or dominated by FBI-CIA-DEA types.... or you will have a
government in shambles due to a domestic rebellion.... and remember that
libertarians LIKE to see governments in shambles. And you will have encouraged
the only Americans willing to oppose these people to disarm themselves.
At that point in the equation, liberal friend,
unless your side is armed, your side won't count. Your side will not only be
irrelevant, but to quote former California Governor Pete Wilson, it will be
"fucking irrelevant". And if you disarm Americans, remembering that we
won't disarm, you will have no power, and we might very well have all of it.
In the light of what I've just written, liberal
friend, let me ask you again. Do you want to disarm the American people so that
they will not be able to fight back against a tyrannical government? Or do you
want to trust whomever comes to power to not be a tyrant. Germany did the latter
and got the Third Reich. What will YOU get?
By the way, lest anyone have a cow, I do not
believe conservatives and libertarians can possibly be equated with the Nazis.
But I'm comparing the Weimar Republic to America of today, in one aspect, and
one aspect only, and that is exposing the fallacy that the political enemies of
the ruling government can be successfully disarmed by disarming the society at
large, which is what we're really talking about. I am responding specifically to
people who say that the NRA, the GOA, myself, and many of our allies are so
dangerous that we need to be disarmed, and that that could be accomplished by
disarming the populace as a whole.
Targeting the most military styled political
enemy you have in a nation with general gun control against everyone actually
strengthens the political enemy.
I can also use Weimar Germany and probably a
100 other examples to demonstrate that in most conflicts, that when the "gunphobics"
decide to square off against the "gun lovers", the gun lovers almost
always win. To beat us, you have to become just like us. Ultimately, to
successfully disarm us, you will have to pick up a gun and make it so. Or hire
someone and pay them to do the same.
This is why I am so adamantly against the gun
controllers. Because I know that. I know ultimately that for them to win, they
will have to turn into far worse than whatever they perceive we are. You still
think you all will simply talk us out of it or legislate us out of it, but I
know better. I know that either you will lose to us or you will beat us by
becoming monsters. And I know there will be no other choices.
Remember what I said, people. Nothing you do
will cause the hardcore conservatives and libertarians to disarm. Probably, gun
control will only cause more of us TO arm. Because we know what happens next if
we don't.
Governments in the 20th century have killed 100
million people. Almost all of those governments had one thing in common.....
they stripped their eventual victims of firearms. Almost every people who have
tried to appease a tyrant have lived to regret it. There is a more important
spiritual lesson, in your zest to avoid the sword, that some of you have
forgotten.... "Put not your trust in princes." By disarming, you are
trusting the princes.
I don't trust the princes. Do you?
Hitler probably would have come to power anyway
in Germany. However, with a disarmed populace, he came to power with a minority
of the vote, and without a check and balance against his power. Had there been
an armed populace, he might not have been able to consolidate absolute power.
Probably no World War II. Probably no Holocaust. Guns in the right hands could
have stopped it all.
Anyone in today's political climate personally
strike you as dangerous?
It doesn't really matter who it is, or what
party they belong to. Just understand this: gun control strengthens their hand.
YOU personally disarming strengthens their hand.
Again, I'll reask the question of those who
support gun control. Have you lost your minds?
Copyright, 2001, LizMichael.com, www.lizmichael.com
Permission to reprint granted so long as the website and the copyright remains
referenced. No exclusivity may be retained by any individual or press entity
which reprints. |
||||||||
Let
me tell 'ya a little story 'bout a man named Adolf. In the 20's the National
Socialists were heavily armed (heavily for that day, anyway). The Bolsheviks
were also somewhat armed, not to the degree of the Nazis. They were both
probably better armed than the regular army, which was through the Treaty of
Versailles, rendered next to useless.