7.  WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOSE?
    by Mike Straw [comp_threat_man{at}juno.com]
    Special to TLE      http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/>     Issue 220

Winston Churchill said, "If you have ten thousand regulations, you
destroy all respect for the law."

As a decent and law-abiding citizen, if I obey both the letter and intent
of the myriad, sometimes incomprehensible twenty thousand unconstitutional
extremist victim disarmament laws, why should I fear?

This myopic, but popular, viewpoint betrays a woeful disregard of what must
be now obvious to even the dullest observer: regardless of the
weasel-worded rhetoric, cackling, hypocritical Sara Brady wants you dead.

And Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Ted
Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Leiberman, John McCain, Janet
Reno, Chuck Schumer, and a plethora of like-minded scheming social fascists
clamoring for more innocent blood.

Extreme, you say. Not at all, simply logical. In the words of Sir Francis
Bacon, "Knowledge is power."

That's the reason you're already doomed: they can take away your tools, but
how do they destroy your knowledge?

By destroying you.

The noose was lovingly placed about our tender throats in June 1934 by a
smiling Franklin Roosevelt and has been growing increasingly ever tighter
since.

The National Firearms Act was the slimy camel's nose under the tent of
liberty; the rest of the stinking beast came crashing in when the abhorrent
"Gun Control" of 1968 and "Brady" acts were insolently
shoved down our naive throats.

In 1927, what would complacent Jewish businessmen have thought of a book
titled, "Prepare for the Coming Holocaust?"

"But we've been peacefully conducting business for over two thousand
years! Who would want to hurt me?"

How many would have shown up at a pro-firearms rally before Hitler had been
legally elected?

Read the brilliant and insightful "Why England Slept" by John
Kennedy. It couldn't happen here, right? Read "While America
Sleeps," by Donald, Fredrick, and Frederick W. Kagan.

A paraphrase of Pastor Niemoller's words for today would sound like this:
"In America, first they came for the handgunners, but I didn't a have
a handgun, so I did nothing. Then they came for the `assault' weapons, but
I didn't have an `assault' weapon, so I did nothing. Then they came for the
fifty-calibers, but I didn't have a fifty-caliber, so I did nothing. Then
they came for the trap and skeet shooters, but I wasn't a trap or skeet
shooter, so I did nothing. Then they came for the hunters, and there wasn't
anyone left."

Laugh now. You soon won't. Law-abiding permit holders are the first group
persecuted by the evil social fascists.

John Aquilino asserts that, "[legal defensive firearms] owners are the
new niggers... of society."

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, "Every movement that seeks to enslave a
country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority
group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use
as a justification of its own demand for dictatorial powers." If you
think the disinformation media will be sympathetic, ever, think again. It's
in their interest to sensationalize any story, no matter how mundane or
clear-cut, and it will never be in your favor.

The disinformation media turned an innocent mugging victim into "the
subway vigilante." You're next. You could be a "disgruntled
former employee," a "mentally deranged individual," or a
"gun nut." Do you possess legal defensive firearms? Why? What do
you need them for? Nobody "needs":

A fifty-caliber firearm
A "high-power" rifle
A military rifle
A shotgun with a folding stock
A "high-capacity" pistol
An "assault" weapon
A "large-caliber" firearm
A center-fire firearm
A self-loading firearm
A "concealable" firearm
Hollow-point ammunition
More than one firearm
More than one box of ammunition
Any legal defensive firearm

For those of less than stellar intellect, the correct answer is, "The
Constitution doesn't stipulate a "need."

No matter, the disinformation media already has you pigeon-holed, your
headline already written.

A legal defensive pistol is a "large-caliber, high-capacity
handgun." Your hunting rifle is a "high-power, large-caliber
sniper rifle."

Do you have a bag of fertilizer in your garage? You possess "large
quantities of bomb-making materials." Do you have more than one legal
defensive weapon? You have an "arsenal." Your basement is a
"reinforced concrete bunker." Do you reload? You have a
"miniature ammunition factory."

Do you belong to a club? You have "ties to extremist
organizations." Particular about your friends? You're "a
loner."

Have you ever been arrested? You have "a history of run-ins with the
law." A veteran? You were "disturbed."

Isn't it great to be popular? If they can't lie about it, it'll be
"unclear." Beginning to sound familiar?

Do you attend a church, mosque, or synagogue? Why, you're a "religious
fanatic!"

Are you required to take prescription medication? You're a "known drug
user."

Is there one can of beer in your house? You were "drunken and
antagonistic."

If you suffer under one of the despotic social fascist oligarchies like
Massachusetts, New York, or California, "self-protection" is
insufficient for an expensive conditional temporary permit to save your own
life. People who wish you defenseless claim that legal defensive firearms
have no "legitimate sporting use" (an artful and catchy phrase
coined by clever National Socialist Joseph Goebbels.)

Would they consider protection of your precious family from illegal assault
to be un-sporting? Remind them that the concept of a "sporting
use" comes from their spiritual forebears, the National Socialists.
Those thugs determined that trying to stay out of a concentration camp
wasn't a legitimate use of arms, while hunting women and children for sport
was. Iniquitous Democrat Senator Thomas Dodd, who had collaborated with the
prosecutors at the Nuremburg
trials, transliterated the notorious "Gun Control" [Extremist
Victim Disarmament] Act of 1968 from the infamous National Socialist Law on
Weapons of March eighteenth 1938. The term "sporting purpose" in
GCA '68 was directly translated from "hunting firearm" in NLW
'38.

The sole reason I own legal defensive firearms is, according to the bloody
ATF, not "sporting." Somehow, I don't believe that the predatory
criminal intent on slitting my family's throats is "sporting,"
either, but the bloodthirsty "government" Delta assassins who
murdered harmless women and innocent children at Waco may have considered
it "sporting."

Self-protection is the one use that our "government" doesn't view
as legitimate ...an attitude that's quite disturbing in the people who're
supposedly employed by the taxpaying sheep. I can only wonder what they're
up to, that they prefer law-abiding unorganized Militia members around them
to be unequipped to resist illegal aggression. Just as rape is more about
control than it is about sex, so extremist victim disarmament is about
control and not about "security."

In the words of Ben Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety." Historically, even a handful of armed people can stand in the
way of genocide and check its advance.

The names Leonidas and Mordechai Anielewicz immediately leap to mind.
Throughout history, anyone who said "Make yourself defenseless or else
we'll harm you" has inflicted harm even in the event of full
compliance, thus lawful unorganized Militia members have nothing to lose by
retaining their ability to protect themselves.

The paradigm is Britain: before 2000, the lowest crime rate in the world,
but after insane extremist victim disarmament, the highest.

The exact path is being daily played out here: ever-tightening
"reasonable restrictions," transfer of title (registration),
confiscation, and at last, inevitably, extermination.

Being a legal defensive firearm owner is made up of two components:
possession of legal defensive firearms and possession of skills and
training. One can surrender a legal defensive firearm but not the training.
That skill is the extremist victim disarmers' problem. It means that an
unorganized Militia member trained to use weapons will be able to make use
of firearms acquired in the future. He'd also have a strong motivation to
avenge the loss of his means of self-protection.

The only solution to it would be gulags, prison camps or execution for the
former legal defensive firearm owners. Soviets, for example, use a
combination of the two approaches. Knowing that, legal defensive firearm
owners can't surrender their legal defensive firearm and simply expect to
be left in peace.

Law-abiding German Jews did so, yet it's not their six million names we
remember, but rather specific geographic locations which remind us:
Auschwitz, Dachau, Sobibor, Treblinka.

Plans have already been made, laws have already been passed, all that
remains is their - and our - execution.

In 1776, they assaulted Concord. Today it's Ruby Ridge, Waco, and your house.

In 1776, they came dressed in red coats. Today it's jackboots, black BDUs,
body armor and Nazi helmets.

In 1776, they carried muskets. Today they're equipped with MP-5/40s and
night vision devices.

In 1776, it was the Tories. Today, it's the evil social fascists.

In 1776, they rode on horses. Today they ride in APCs with flamethrowers -
but they're still the same enemy, and they`re still after your legal
defensive firearms, your liberty, and your life.

In 1776, would you have killed a British soldier? In 1943, would you have
killed an S. S. trooper? Would you kill an occupying U. N. soldier? A
favorite National Socialist technique was to allow local mercenary
proxy-guardian "police" to live so long as they did their
master's bidding. I'll bet the U. N. will do the same thing. In 1776, would
you have killed a Hessian mercenary? In 1943, would you have killed
Ukrainian slave troops? Could you kill an evil blue-helmeted smurf acting
as a hired stooge for that evil front for world terrorism, the U.N.?

The vacuous social fascists, in their lunacy, misguidedly place the value
of any fellow evil man above that of all good men, typically illustrating
it with dim-witted absurdities such as, "I'd willingly place myself
between a predatory criminal and my family," never considering that
without vigorous previous training and experience under stress, even with
adequate tools at his disposal, he's likely to be merely the first futilely
slaughtered.

Gladly offering himself as an empty sacrifice on the gory altar of evil is
a worthless, self-serving desecration of precious life.

An act of self-actualization, and the supreme honor an evil man believes he
can bestow, is the perpetration of unwarranted violence upon any good man:
evil for it's own sake, an act of worship for the evildoer.

These same air-headed social fascists would agree that if they were adrift
alone in the wide ocean and an empty life preserver happened to float by,
they'd pass it up on the vague theory that somewhere, someone may be in
greater need than them!

For the better part of a century now, we've been allowing the evil social
fascists to dictate the battle, first to us, then to our impressionable
children, using self-serving claptrap like "I don't wish to continue
living in a world where I must resort to violence."

In prehistoric times, these arrogant airheads would have been
"selected" by dinosaurs as a tasty morsel, never more to pollute
the human gene pool.

During World War Two, they would have entered the camps in terror, jokingly
referred to by their German torturers as "luftmensch," serenely
departing soon thereafter as mere "luft," wafting up the
chimneys. Will you die quietly, like a good German Jew, or will you
righteously take some with you?

---