Monday, December 9, 2013

No soup OR semi-autos for you!

A few days ago at, a tyrant made his pitch. He wants to re-educate Americans on the real meaning of Christmas, I mean the 2nd Amendment, and convince us to see that the e-e-e-vilest things in the world aren’t sparkly-uniformed & jackbooted killers like him, but guns…in the hands of civilians like me.
The lieutenant colonel who lectures us at Esquire doesn’t ring the death knell on the U.S. Liberty Bell for the actual Pol Pot, or Idi Amin, or Uncle-Joe Stalin, or even the leftist’s favorite “rightwing nutjob”-slash-tyrant, Adolph Hitler.
Nope. This mighty-military man answers to the leftist’s very own 21st century destroyer, President Barry Sotero. I mean Barrack Obama.

Sure the Esquire article is pure double-timing agitprop: meant to raise the spirits of the faithful gun-fearful, the hoplophobes, you know, the cheerleaders-for-confiscation. But it’s also meant to bring out the cries, shouts, and threats of the opposition, like me. See how well it’s working? And sure, if the pushback by pro-self-defense types is addressed at all they’ll be called “knee jerk” by the big-league media which is nearly all anti self-defense.
But in all this, what’s most important is the need to listen to and actually believe writers like Esquire’s guest, Lt. Colonel Robert Bateman. Particularly when they admit “at the end of the day his job is about killing.” When those wielding the Weapons-of-State, like this military man, freely call themselves killers and then go on to talk Gun Confiscation, damn straight, “I’m listening Seattle.”
And since it’s doubtful this uniformed career “killer” would go out on such an extreme anti-gun limb by himself, it’s safe to conjecture plenty of his fellow officers feel precisely the same.

So…there’s bad bad-news and good bad-news Liberty- and Security- lovers. The bad is that I guess they really are out to get you - and your guns. The good-slash-bad news is you really aren’t paranoid.

Generational Gun-confiscation. I began responding to this Esquire piece for one reason: for the last ten or eleven months (following the anti-gun tsunami that swept the nation one year ago, a.k.a. Sandy Hook) I’ve been thinking a lot about “generational gun confiscation.” I witnessed the instantaneous and monster-machinelike power of the popular media back then. It molded the narratives as dictated from the White House and pumped them over and over, ad infinitum, into the childlike sponge-minds of their consumers.
And it went something like this:
“Guns-are-bad-and-unnecessary; scary gun-nuts are worse than guns; what would best would be to get rid of them all.” Rinse; repeat.

So, grasshopper, you want to get rid of guns without another quote-unquote civil war? Simple. Patience, grasshopper.
Not quite like the patience of Job, in that while Obama & his friends in high places wait they’ll still have fine salaries, armed bodyguards, beautiful safe places to live, and terrific salve prescribing health-care plans. Because they’re special and the rulers and, well, you aren’t.
Not even like the patience of the Mohammedans, who’ve been peacefully chopping heads off and lovingly blowing up infidels who refuse to “submit” to their special book, non-stop, Oh…since the 7th century.
Nope, the patience to Get-the-Guns from pesky Americans need not reach the level of those two religious examples at all. Just the kind Lt. Col. Robert Bateman methodically explains for us in Esquire.

Bateman is right in this one point: it will only take one more generation. Though overall, his faux outrage at guns in America is wrong in so many ways, beginning with the so-called inciting incident of a Black-on-Black, likely alcohol-fueled, argument turned deadly-shooting,
By, say 2030, so few will have been taught, for example, how America had to supply its British allies in WWII with e-e-evil guns; so few will understand how Bateman butchers the 2nd Amendment in Esquire by turning it inot a purely State concept, never mentioning the original intent of the Founders which was based on real-world individuals providing their own singular and group-defense.
Bateman and Esquire both preach basically to the same crowd: urban, well-educated, guilty-white liberal Americans. This congregation of folks can’t imagine owning a gun because that fact alone would be an implied deadly-threat, just as they’d likely have a hard time raising a hand in their own defense - for fear of harming the would be criminal.

By the time the last quote-unquote illegal guns are grabbed, so few civilians will see the irony when the American jackbooted pawns of the State arrive. Will those disarmed, defanged, pacified onlookers deem American Enforcers’ armaments evil? Won’t they be intimidated or scared of what’s strapped on “the good guys’” hips and/or slung across their black-uniformed, anonymous helmeted bodies? No? Why not? Will they cheer as they did the similar show of State Force in Boston after the recent bombing, when these future storm troopers pry those quote-unquote-illegal personal weapons from the cold dead hands of those onlookers’ e-e-evil gun-nut neighbors and forefathers?

In the end the last old Grandpa Charlton Heston type won’t go out in a blaze of glory after all. He’ll simply have been waiting months or years for a heart bypass or some other old-age treatment; be passing some time peacefully cleaning the last old shotgun or rifle or handgun he gone years unable to find ammo for, when…Boom! Heart attack. Or some other old-age thing, and he’ll keel over, dead.

And finally old, grey, feeble, retired how-many-ever-starred General Bateman will be wheeled out for Obama’s Special Press Conference. And peace will reign in the gun-free U.S.A.. Oh, except for those owned and carried and used against defenseless civilians by the professional Federal and State killers. And except for those stashed away for a rainy day by the street criminals most of whom, even back in 2013, were/are Black or Hispanics (yet never got vilified like the NRA and generic white gun “nuts,” 99.9% of whom never shot a soul).

So check out the article at, and some of the comments as well; until next time, Keep Rebelling.

  This essay first appeared on the author’s YouTube-channel.


Robert What? said...

He is totally missing the point of a "well regulated militia". It was considered the armed citizenry who would muster to fight a common outside threat, or more relevant to today, overthrow a tyrant or rogue government. According to his interpretation, the militia is the government is the militia, etc. That is, the government will be called out to defend the people against that same government. The General is a perfect illustration of why we need the Second Amendment.

Joseph said...

Aren't the youngest Vietnam combat veterans nearing retirement age? This might be a wave of the past instead of a wave of the future.