The Left's REAL Agenda  

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Kim du Toit is an absolute expert on the Second Amendment.

His wife is no slouch, either.

Last week, she took on Jim Zumbo, a Hollywood idiot who took the position that the Second Amendment's purpose is to protect hunters. She started by quoting a previous post of hers, in which she had had this to say:

Others argue that the Second Amendment was added to allow sportsman to hunt or to shoot at cups and saucers. This camp argues that it was never intended that you have arms to shoot at a person, or in your defense, it was only a protection for hobbyists and hunting enthusiasts.
This idiot (Zumbo) apparently changed his position on the "assault weapons" ban because he didn't realize that hunters used them. What a moron.

He was rightly buried by Second Amendment supporters for his prior remarks. He was fired by OLN and Remington, for whom he had been doing shows and such. All relevant sponsors cancelled their endorsements. He really took it on the chin. Good.

So why didn't the truth sink in?? Who knows? Mrs. dT gave him a blunt reminder:
The Second Amendment, which articulates your "right to bear arms," has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.
This will be added to the list of random quotes I post at the top of the page. It's one of the most important things people need to know about the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was instituted to empower every day people like you and me to kill those who would try to wrest our rights and freedoms from our hands. It gives us the right to own and use weapons of all sorts in an effort to protect ourselves from criminals of all sorts.

This isn't just for defending our homes against intruders. It's for killing agents of an oppressive government which makes illegal laws, levies illegal taxes, confiscates private property, etc. Are you getting the picture?

As I thought about this, something very dark and profound came to mind, and the direction of my post changed drastically.

Before I explain myself, there's something from Mrs. du Toit's post that must be brought forth, as I will need to reference it later, and smoothly:
...we ALSO understand the order of bringing about change is the four boxes:
1. Soap
2. Ballot
3. Jury
4. Cartridge

In that order and never getting to the last until the first three boxes are completely and entirely gone from us.
You see, all this brings us to the real reason the anti-Second Amendment crowd is so vocal and pushy.

This crowd, largely socialist, communist, and "liberal",can see quite well that people are starting to see and feel the effects of their illegal laws, punitive taxes, confiscation of property, etc. The first three "boxes" are wearing down quickly, and the point of having to use the "cartridge box" is fast approaching. The more guilt they can instill in people who choose to own guns and those who are thinking about it, the better for their cause. The fewer armed Americans there are, the easiser it will be to bring their plans to full implementation.

Face it. There are only two kinds of anti-gun loonies - (1) the kind who are out to get as many guns away from as many Americans as possible in order to make it easy to oppress those same people, and (2) the kind who have been fooled by those same loonies into believing that their intentions are honorable. These people play on people's emotions, bringing forth images of violent crime, dead children, and, of course, everyone's favorite anti-gun icon, Bambi. They pretend to have compassion for the innocent, weak, downtrodden, and defenseless, and in the same breath seek to increase the number of innocent, wear, downtrodden, and defenseless that they can have compassion for.

No surprise. This is the tactic liberals use for all of their foolish schemes. The dream up something that people will view as a crisis (take your pick - Animal rights, illegal aliens, failing schools, AIDS, global warming - whoops, sorry they call this "global climate change" now because they can't conclude that it's consistently "warming" anymore - sorry about that, insane people in asylums and the resulting bums in the street - er, "homeless" - once they closed down the asylums, pollution, and the list goes on ...), figure out a way people will be so emotionally affected by it that they will spend their hard-earned money to stop it, use that money and the voices of those who they've fooled to shout down politicians and convince them to spend everyone else's money on it, and from there create jobs in government for people who are trained to "solve" the applicable "crisis".

Over time, the public sector grows at the expense of the private sector, and these people dream up ways to incorporate what used to be the private sector into the public sector. Eventually, they hope, there will be no more private sector at all, and once that has happened, their socialism has won the day.

If they've taken the guns, the people have no means of rising up to defend against this. Oh, and the police and military that are paid (by the oppressed) to do the bidding of the oppressors STILL WILL BE ARMED.

Now some liberidiot nutjob will probably make a stop into the comment area and ask why, if these people intend to use the military to oppress people, these same people are largely "anti-war".

The answer is simple. They are NOT anti-war. They are simply using war as a pity scheme in the crisis scenario shown above. They use war to bring forth people's pity for those who die in it in the hopes that people will rise up against the war. Remember that the War on Terror (and that includes the Iraq front) is a means of retaliating against those who have attacked us, as well as spreading FREEDOM in the hopes that those attempting to oppress us from without will either decline in number, leave us alone, or die. If this war were about spreading SOCIALISM, they'd have no problem with it whatsoever.

Just read any thread at DU for the proof.

The real motivation for the anti-gun crowd to be so vocal and steadfast is not that they think people shouldn't carry guns. It's because they believe that they are better qualified that you or I to decide who should be carrying them,and they want to be able to impose that belief upon us, whether we like it or not ...

Just like they do when they take our lives (Roe v. Wade), our fortunes (the tax code), and our sacred honor (McCain-Feingold).

I say this from my "soab box". I also proudly use my "ballot box" at every opportunity. The "jury box" is a joke because those who choose the juries represent the oppressors.

With the state things are in today, especially given the oppressive and illegal gun laws there are in this country, using the "cartridge box" cannot be all that far off. Those first three boxes are indeed nearly completely and entirely gone from us. Thus, we must remember:
We, collectively, give our government a tremendous amount of our trust. We give them the power to make and enforce laws. We give them the power to incarcerate those among us who refuse to abide by those laws. With that trust we demand only the commensurate, reciprocal trust: You may make war against us, so we retain the right and the means to make war against you. It is a permanent and perpetual stand off. It is a mutual destruction pact.
Unfortunatetly, I cannot agree with her next statement about not ever expecting to need to go to war with our own government. In fact, if Hitlery finds a way into the White House (which I thank God is highly unlikely), I'm certain it will be absolutely necessary. Our government doesn't fear us anymore, and that is reason enough.