Incremental Civilian Disarmament: Strip-Tease of the Liberties

A gun in the wrong hands: Chuck Schumer, seen here compensating for some hidden shortcoming (but not for all of his obvious ones).

“When the NRA and I agree on legislation,” oozed the incarnate glob of viscous evil known as Senator Chuck Schumer, “you know that it's going to get through, become law, and do some good.”

Schumer was referring to the measure passed in the House yesterday (June 13) -- by an unrecorded voice vote! -- that will expand the scope and funding of a national database used in background checks of prospective gun buyers.

The Quisling outfit called the National Rifle Association, ever eager to see that patently unconstitutional gun laws are faithfully enforced, supported the measure. Gun Owners of America, the only national gun rights group worthy of that description, did not. As GOA's Erich Pratt told the New York Times, this system is designed to force “law-abiding people ... to prove their innocence to a bureaucrat before they exercise their constitutional rights” to purchase and own a firearm.

The putative purpose of the measure is to prevent deranged people and other “mental defectives” like the Virginia Tech mass murderer Seung-Hui Cho from buying firearms. But this law, like every other gun law, will give criminals of that sort an additional competitive advantage over the law-abiding.

This, Schumer would insist, falls under the heading of doing “good.”

One must keep in mind that from Schumer's perspective, which differs from that of the Khmer Rouge only in relatively trivial matters of detail, doing “good” involves denuding individuals of their privacy and the means to resist the government.

To understand more fully Schumer's passion to reduce Americans to servitude, it's useful to picture him not as a Senator, freshly groomed and swaddled in an expensive, well-tailored suit, but rather as a grimy, unshaven patron of a malodorous strip club, his beady eyes fixed with unblinking, predatory lust on the hapless Chinese immigrant girl forced to perform for his amusement (her career as an “exotic dancer” being written into the contract with the Snakehead that brought her to the U.S.).

As the dancer, trembling from the effort to suppress her disgust, discards each layer of clothing, Schumer (the version in our example) becomes more agitated, his illicit appetites growing more insistent. He will not relent until that unfortunate girl is deprived of any modesty or decency, fully exposed to his inspection and subject to his whims.

In this respect, Schumer is not significantly different from most representatives of our political class, irrespective of the political brand name under which they conduct their assault on our liberties. In dealing with Americans who insist on defending their rights, Schumer emits a dense musk of unfiltered malice; his arrogance is palpable, as is his desire to reduce Americans to helotry. During the 1995 congressional hearings into the Waco Holocaust, Schumer gave the impression that he was disappointed that the federal mass murder at Mt. Carmel was a one-off event, rather than the opening shots of a campaign to annihilate gun owners nation-wide.

Schumer's demeanor and tactics in that hearing left me with the strong impression that he was somehow the product of a genetic experiment combining the salient traits of Soviet gulag master Lazar Kaganovich with those of the equally repellent Roland Freisler, the histrionic Communist-turned National Socialist who presided over Nazi Germany's “People's Court”:

Schumer's ideological ancestor Lazar Kaganovich, the "Wolf of the Kremlin" (left) and Nazi Judge Roland Freisler (below, right), whose demeanor and comportment uncannily matched those of New York's senior Senator.

The purpose of the Second Amendment, as I've pointed out before, is not merely to protect a clearly articulated individual right to armed self-defense, although this is certainly one of its important function. Its central purpose, I believe, is to make it clear that in the republic the Founders created (how I wish it were still in operation), the government did not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

The people who wrote that Amendment, we should never forget, were pretty much the same group that took part in history's noblest act of sedition by signing a document setting out some of the conditions under which it was proper and necessary to “alter or abolish” the government that ruled them. The right to keep and bear arms must be viewed in that context: When the time comes for an oppressive government to be confronted and, if necessary, abolished, the people must be armed.

(A quick digression: Why is sedition – a word directly related to “separation” or “secession” -- considered a crime? It seems to me that when a government attempts to criminalize sedition, becoming a seditionist is the moral duty of every citizen.)

On the other hand, the reason why the Regime is intent on collecting as much information as it can on law-abiding gun owners is to make gun confiscation possible. This is theoretical only as it applies to the Regime's actions domestically: As I've documented elsewhere, the Regime has eagerly conducted gun confiscation programs as part of “peacekeeping” missions in Haiti, Somalia, and elsewhere. We shouldn't forget the effort to disarm victims of Hurricane Katrina.

And those who don't think that our rulers are capable of systematically destroying their disarmed victims really should acquaint themselves with the Federal Government's treatment of American Indians during the 19th Century. Once again, we're not discussing this issue in an abstract, theoretical realm.

Schumer and his loathsome ilk seek to strip us of all of our rights. They would love to denude us in a single paroxysm of violence, of course, but from their perspective a forced strip-tease works just as well. The outcome would be the same in either case.

No comments: