Don’t Let the Government Take My Gun Away!

It must be terribly troubling these days to be a government conspiracy theorist- sleepless nights, worrisome days- wondering when that dreaded knock on the door will come or when the sound of those black helicopters will be heard overhead! “The government is coming to take my gun away!”

After the shooting at Sandy Hook, the general public, often asleep, has stirred and has begun to demand a stop to the wanton wholesaling of military assault weapons on our streets and in our neighborhood. The NRA is nervous because finally The People are not backing. You can hear fear in their inane rhetoric. The once-impenetrable fortress is under siege.

Naturally they have turned to their faithful base, the NRA membership.  Yet not all members are as mindless as the hard-core conspiracy theorists at its base.  Many NRA members support universal background checks as well as limiting the capacity of magazine clips.  Sensible people. They are parents and grandparents who are concerned about the children first, NRA membership a distant second.

Nonetheless, other NRA members are obsessed, even paranoid, with the thought that ‘the government’ is coming to take their guns away. Even more deranged are those who believe that citizens need their military assault weapons to protect themselves from The Government.  Just this morning, a letter to the editor of the Toledo Blade manifested such obsessive paranoia:

Don’t be so quick to ban assault guns

I have some suggestions for your readers and op-ed columnists who continue to point out that most of the guns used in recent shootings are not suitable for hunting.

People should read the Second Amendment. There is no reference to hunting. They should look up the definition of militia, then answer this: if circumstances necessitated the formation of militias, how could law-abiding citizens do so if all of the effective weaponry had been banned or confiscated?

JERRY NOSS

Poor Mr. Noss. He’s been listening to talk radio way-too much and reading his NRA literature too often. But then, think about this: a BLACK president in the White House! And he hasn’t even begun his next 4-year term yet! And his Vice President is holding talks on guns!  And…!

There ought to be GA [gun anonymous] meetings available throughout this nation, just as comprehensive and numerous as AA groups. Yet, on second thought, I don’t give much hope for the success of GA groups for the serious conspiracy theorists. They are too deeply involved in myth and fantasy to be ‘set straight’ without professional psychological counselling.

Hopefully- although I have no data on this- this clutch represents only a small fraction of NRA membership. As in many organizations, there exists a core of hardened believers in the ’cause.’ These zealots commonly believe so intensely in the mission that they may loose sight of the big picture. To the hard-core conspiratorialists, mandating background checks for all purchases of weapons as well as the ban on army assault-style weapons is tyranny. The bubble universe in which they dwell has no room for such ‘impinging’ limitations on their freedom.

Those moronic Tea Party costumes seen on TV worn by that absurd gathering of malcontents in DC a few years ago seems bland in comparison to the GI Joe, locked and loaded cabal huddled in basements atop their stash of ammunition all across America. Were I a neighbor of a person such as the editorial writer cited above, a For Sale sign would be driven into the frozen ground this morning.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Don’t Let the Government Take My Gun Away!

  1. I’m serious as a heart attack now. While commenting on this blog (and maybe some posse member blogs) I have been very careful to respect the mental limitations of some of the other commenters. While reading up both sides of this issue, I have come across some of the most idiotic statements that are almost beyond comprehension. And do ya think you can guess on which side of the issue they fall?

    Many of the anti-guncontrol group continually bring up the very same “facts” that ‘ole Common Sense used to bring up. (Just mentioning his name brings up dark thoughts.) These morons (there I said it) claim the Constitution protects their right to bear arms. I have even heard a couple of them saying that not only does the Constitution protect their guns, but the “original” Constitution protects them from any Constitutional Amendments. Yes, I know. That’s why I said it. Want another chuckle? When I try to explain the Constitution to them, their reply is often “I carrying a copy of it in my pocket, want to read it?” As if that makes their understanding the correct one.

    I was going to make some sarcastic remarks about having in my possession certain lethal items in a comparison type of statement, but that would probably get me on a watch list.

    And you made a particular point that I’ve been seeing a lot of lately. Why is it that most of these knotheads are afraid of being attacked by our own government, the same people who go on and on about how brave and loyal our Armed Forces are? Many of them are ex-military who say now we should be afraid of said military. So why is it that we are only afraid of these former/wanna be military types?

    1. So why is it that we are only afraid of these former/wanna be military types?

      Are you SURE that they are who they ‘claim’ to be? Here in hyperspace anyone can ‘claim’ to be whomever they wish to be. BTW, I am the King of Lichtenstein!

      1. ROFLMAO – Could we be referring to that who goes by the moniker of Sepp?

        What a bunch of morons! And they don’t even realize that there are some of us who were actually in the military and/or related to someone who served. It is so easy to spot those fakes when they use something they probably saw on TV. I alwasy get a lot of flak when I say this, but if those guys were in the service, the military sure has lowered their standards in the last few decades. There were “rocks”, but not nearly enough of them to fill a local “posse.”

        And as far as the bragging about their gun collections, didn’t we used to say the same thing about guys who drove fancy sports cars?

  2. BREAKING DUMBA** NEWS:

    MONTPELIER, Ohio – The Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education has approved the carrying of handguns by its custodial staff.

    1. HI there! Long time no see!

      Yes, it is an exciting time. People are finally getting upset at the carnage caused by the all to easy access to firearms in the US. It’s amazing the amount of support that is building.

      Of course, the usual it’s our right crowd is out there not understanding the constitution and that it pretty much contradicts what they are implying it says. In fact, most of their arguments don’t stand the light of day.

      Piers Morgan can show what crazies and buffoons these people are–which may also be driving them nuts.

      1. Welcome back, Laci. Yes, some people in these United States interpret the word, freedom, to mean the freedom to do whatever the hell they wish without regard to the social contract that a civil society demands.

        1. Reminds me of the old 40s and 50s movies about the moon shiners in the South…Wasn’t Tobacco Road one of them?…””Ere come those
          reveneurs, after my still.” Just who wanted those mountain stills put
          out of business?

      1. canons were made by private people and bought by private families, so does the “right to bear arms” include cannons?

        1. And there is the crux of the issue. “Families” who owned cannons privately had to employ a small army to shoot them. And because at that time (225 years ago and in some places the earth was still flat) there wasn’t a federal militia, protection was obtained by having a small army. Today we have a federal militia and they are retained to protect us, not the individual and/or family.

          The question of guns for hunting is so last century. The newest argument from the fringe is “arms” are required to protect us from the federal militia. While at the same time, most/all of this fringe is claiming how loyal this militia is to the people.

          Now I say this for myself and I mean it. Most/all of the fringe* strike me as being somewhat deficient mentally. These people’s total lack of decision making ability and tilted understanding of history, make them absolutely unqualified to be in control of weapons of death. I think instead of a background test, they should have to pass a proficiency test and have a predetermined minimum I.Q.

          *Next time you see an interview of one of these types, don’t mute the sound but listen to them. You’ll wonder if these people should even have a driver’s license, let alone a gun. These are the same people who say they need the semi-automatic in case their house in invaded by more than one person (see video above). It doesn’t dawn on them that the invaders might be carrying semi-automatics themselves. And did anyone else notice she called her husband, instead of the police. The recording you hear is ONLY the husband talking to the 911 operator, no other noises of a home invasion. If the wife is that stupid, should she be having children with a gun in the home? (Not that I doubt the story as told…….)

          And it all comes back to my favorite quote: “If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!” Next time you run into a posse member candidate, say that and see if they agree.

          1. What keeping and bearing arms means is that one has the right to belong to the militia.

            But, the term right probably wasn’t the best choice of words since it actually referred to having an obligation to serve in the militia. Kinda like having the right to a jury trial means that people need to serve on juries.

            Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where it gives congress the power to arm the militia.

            Concern was that given that the Federal government had an Army. they would favour that over a militia. That said, the Feds would neglect to arm the militia.

            Problem–the institution didn’t die from Congressional action.

            Militia service was so unpopular that Delaware abolished its militia system altogether in 1831. Massachusetts eliminated compulsory service in 1840, followed by Maine, Ohio, Vermont in 1844, Connecticut and New York in 1846, Missouri in 1847, and New Hampshire in 1851. Indiana classified its militia according to age in 1840, and exempted all but the young men from service. New Jersey withdrew the right to imprison a man for failure to pay a militia fine in 1844; Iowa did the same in 1846, Michigan in 1850, and California in 1856.” – Mahon, John K, The History of the Militia and the National Guard, p. 83

            The term “unorganized militia” was kept in use in subsequent decades as a statutory “reminder” that the state could still obligate its citizens to perform military duty, should it ever want them to. Eventually, U.S. law in the early twentieth century picked up this same usage for the same reason: by creating the “unorganized militia,” the United States could guarantee usage of this manpower for military purposes, should the (remote) need ever arise.

            Ultimately, the Second Amendment has fallen victim to desuetude, which is something few people want to admit.

            1. Thanks, Laci, for the historical data regarding guns and militias.

              Yes, those pesky militias which, as you said, were abolished, formally, by the states. Now, however, many insurrectionists, gunnutz and other loonies have resurrected them just in case they need to ‘take down our government.’

              As with all who suffer schizophrenia, reality and fantasy co-mingle.

  3. “BAMAKO, Mali (AP) — The battle to retake Mali’s north from the al-Qaida-linked groups controlling it began in earnest Saturday, after hundreds of French forces deployed to the country and began aerial bombardments to drive back the Islamic extremists.”

    Kudos to a job well done by Microdot and his friends. Looks like you were just in time.

Comments are closed.