I address this missive principally to
Dr. Agger, but it also impacts
Bro. Witt as well in his role as a representative of the Fourth Estate. You are no doubt surprised and shocked by the reaction that Dr, Agger's comments aroused amongst the firearms-owning hoi polloi when repeated in Mr. Witt's story. Both
your responses to David Codrea,
et al, demonstrate that you equally fail to realize that the election of
Barack Obama and the total empowerment of his collectivist Democrat party has carried us all -- you, me, and everyone in this country -- through Barack Obama's looking glass into a wonderland where many of the old verities no longer apply.
The GOP pols, who we first put in power in 1994 with their false promise that they would shield us from more gun control, are gone, swept away. Talk radio is about to muzzled by the Orwellian-named "Fairness Doctrine." Next will be Hate Speech Codes on the Internet (three guesses who that will be aimed at). And then there's this wacky Obama "civilian defense corps" which is supposed to be as large as the military and with as big a budget. What's that going to look like? The Hitler Jugend? The Young Communist League? The Ton-Ton Macoute? And, no, Dr. Agger, you are wrong. This has nothing to do with race.
What you neglected to mention in your story, Mr. Witt, is this snippet of Obama transition policy which popped up on his website,
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."
Now, the fact that this contradiction of the smooth lies told by the Lightworker during the campaign was taken down shortly thereafter did not keep it from being noticed. It is, in fact, simply a retelling of Obama's well-established anti-firearms positions.
This is not about race, Dr. Agger. Indeed, if you wish to hear a contradictory anecdote, you have only to ask the counterman at Academy Sports in Trussville, Alabama, who told me yesterday that many of the customers buying semi-automatic rifles of military utility were black and some, dare I say it, were even white liberals. Are THEY buying out of racial guilt or fear of Nat Turner's ghost, Doctor?
Academy Sports, it should be noted, does not stock cheap SKS's or semi-auto Kalashnikovs but does sell very pricey Smith & Wesson and Remington 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO semi-auto copies of full-auto military rifles. Despite the cost (between $900 and $1500 each) they are flying off the shelves. And Trussville is hardly an inner city ghetto. It is, in fact, an up-scale bedroom community suburb of Birmingham.
White folks are buying guns for the same reason that folks of other races are buying guns: because Obama and his ofay statist pals don't want guns in ANYBODY'S hands. Have you never heard of the Deacons for Defense and Justice, Dr. Agger? The veterans of the civil rights struggle here in Alabama sure have, and it is their sons and grandsons, now successful members of an integrated community that is at peace with itself, who are down at Academy buying Smith & Wesson M4 carbines and cases of ammo to go with them. They remember that a government can easily get out of hand, unrestrained by any law other than the threat of military force in the hands of the people.
And why are many, many people of all races buying semi-automatic rifles of military utility? Oprah Winfrey once said that if someone shows you who they really are, you should believe them. OK, so we believe Obama and his white socialist friends in Congress have shown us who they are -- they are gun-grabbers. You may recall
Dianne Feinstein's infamous quote on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
So when we see notorious anti-firearms politicos like
Rahm Emmanuel,
Charles Schumer,
et al, ad nauseum, embracing Obama and then we read his campaign's anti-gun words above, we're going to take Oprah's advice. We believe this is who they really are. We do not trust them -- we will NEVER trust them -- and hence, the rush to buy.
The vehement reaction that your words caused is perfectly understandable. The anger reflects the new Wonderland world we find ourselves in. Because we believe that Obama's intentions are to further restrict our traditional liberties and to proscribe and seize our heretofore legal property, we have been making, well, adjustments, both in our thinking and in our day-to-day lives. Here are some facts you probably haven't internalized yet.
First, it is a fact that there is a segment of the firearm-owning population in this country who will refuse to comply with any further infringement of their God-given, inalienable rights. Nor, I must tell you, will they surrender their property simply because someone thinks it's a good idea. These people have been known by many names. A few years back they were known as "cold, dead hands types." More recently, they have been described as "Three percenters." In 1775, they were called Minutemen. It does not matter how many million of us there are. Whatever our number, it is enough to prove an indigestible lump in any would-be American tyrant's throat.
Ask yourself this question: Do you believe that the millions of Americans who are currently voting with their wallets by buying semi-automatic rifles of military utility are doing so simply in order to turn them in when Obama and Company pass their "reasonable regulations"? And if not, then what do you suppose they might be thinking about doing with them?
We find these proposed "reasonable regulations" to be, well, unreasonable. To disarm us as the Obamanoids wish, they will have to seek us out in our homes. And when they do, the most important fact about us that you must remember is that if we are willing to die in defense of our homes, our property and our liberty, we are also willing to kill in defense of those things as well. How many of us are they willing to kill to achieve their "reasonable" objective? And after the first few times some of us are killed in our homes resisting their "reasonable regulations," isn't it truly unreasonable to expect that the rest of us will sit idly by, awaiting our turn?
When democracy turns to tyranny, we still get to vote with our rifles. Folks may sneer at us, call us names ("racists" for just one, Dr. Agger), try to marginalize us if they wish, but, as the Founders intended, they deny our existence at their peril. And the second fact should tell you why.
It is this. In 1999, then-President
Bill Clinton declared that the political leadership and news media of his enemies, the Serbs, were legitimate targets of war. He announced this after (not before) he ordered precision guided bombs and missiles into the homes of Serbian politicians and the broadcast facilities of Serbian TV and radio. Now this was roundly condemned at the time by journalists and news organizations all over the world, and rightly so. However, the Clinton Rules of Engagement still stand. Indeed, there are some who regard the academicians who support such regimes with ideas as legitimate targets under Clinton's scheme. (You may recall
Martin Heidegger who, after Hitler's seizure of power in 1933 morphed from Heidegger the world-renowned philosopher to Heidegger the Nazi, holding membership card number 312589.)
Which brings us back to you fellows. Let's do the bloody math. You have the unreasonable Three-percenters on one hand who will resist -- with force of arms -- when gun control comes to their doors. On the other hand, there is the Obama administration which seems destined to move the line of "legality" beyond where we unreasonable Three-percenters now stand. Throw in Bill Clinton's Rules of Engagement for journalists and regime stooges and you've just found yourself to be legitimate targets in a civil war. Unfair? You bet. Unjust? Perhaps. But hey, that's the Law of Unintended Consequences. So please, for your own sakes as well as ours, choose your future words carefully. We're through the Looking Glass, the Red Queen is quite unreasonable and she'll be after all our heads if this goes too far.
And, if it comes to that, you each will have exactly two people to blame. The guy in your bathroom mirror who failed to comprehend the true nature of the "change" Barack Obama portended and Bill Clinton. After all, it was Bill's idea.
Bro.
Mike VanderboeghGun Rights Evangelist to the Heathen Press, Sipsey Street Mission
Our Motto: "Saving Lives, One Ignorant Editorialist at a Time"
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
III
----------------
NOTE: Mike received responses from both Mr. Witt and Dr. Agger. I'll consult with him and some of the other Sipsey Street denizens to see about posting those exchanges, either here or at one of their places, and will advise.
