Missouri Politicians Set Stage for Gun Confiscation

Police confiscate guns

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

February 16, 2013

Recently it seems Missouri politicians have been willing to tackle some very tough but important issues within legislation. Although not perfect, we have bills that attempt to resist the NDAA and warrantless spying by drones on the state level. But with every small victory or progress comes with them more concerns about the condition of our civil rights. One more controversy that we have to keep a close eye on is the legislation sponsored by Rep. Rory Ellinger called HB 545.

Ellinger, along with his cosponsors Representatives Schupp, McNeil, and Walton Gray, have presented an amendment to Chapter 571 of the RSMo. HB 545 essentially puts a ban on “assault weapons” which is not a surprise but their definition of such weapons is even more concerning. This bill doesn’t simply want to ban “assault rifles” like an AR-15, its language clearly includes shotguns and handguns that are able to accept a magazine of more than 10 rounds.

To make matters worse, the bill also does not allow for any “assault weapons” acquired before it becomes law to be grandfathered in. The only solutions it gives are for the owner to remove their gun and high capacity magazines out of state, render the weapon inoperable, or turn the firearm over to the police. Legislation also gives such owners 90 days from the effective date to do one of the three options before they would be in violation of the law. Did I forget to mention that it has a felony charge attached to it?

While the Democrats are certainly the source for such a ridiculous bill, we should not assume that the Republicans are going to come out strong against this legislation. Although House Speaker Tim Jones says he’s committed to protecting the Second Amendment we must hold both parties feet to the fire. The NRA came out recently under their Institute for Legislative Action and said, “Compelling law-abiding citizens to surrender their firearms and magazines is unconstitutional, wrong and another failed attempt to reduce crime… HB 545 would only affect the lawful, while ignoring the actual problem of violent criminals who misuse firearms.”

Of course, there are others that are skeptical about the implementation of this bill. The questions arise as to who would actually follow one of the three steps and would local law enforcement confiscate guns if further action was needed. The answer to both questions is quite simple and stems from a similar logic. People who follow the solutions of HB 545 will be law-abiding citizens who in their naivety think the government knows best. While police officers, in reaction to civil disobedience, will probably go along with an Executive Order by Gov. Jay Nixon or Pres. Obama to quell dissent. However, I do realize that many police officers and even military have stated that they will not go door-to-door confiscation of guns. Let’s just hope that philosophy holds strong when the threat of losing their job or imprisonment becomes a reality.

It is my belief that it is our responsibility to make sure those who supposedly represent us submit to our will. It is also my opinion that we as a society cannot fully depend on public servants to protect us or even resist larger institutions. That is our job. With that being said, I want to challenge local grassroots efforts to focus in on HB 545. The best thing you can do right now without leaving your residence is call the office of Gov. Jay Nixon (573-751-3222) and tell him to renounce this bill. Apparently, according to his secretary, they are keeping count of whether or not the public is for this legislation.

Most importantly, as a concerned citizen, I ask that you also contact your State Representative at573-751-2000 and tell them to reject HB 545 or any new gun control legislation. If you do not know who your State Representative is please click here and look them up by district. Furthermore, as a measure of chastisement, I ask that you contact the sponsor and cosponsors of this bill.

State to them your disapproval of HB 545 and tell them to discontinue any efforts for further restrictions or gun bans. It is important that you are respectful and do not make any violent threats because the latter only hurts our credibility. A final note for any activists that are interested in making calls or sending emails but live out of state, you are also welcome to contact our Missouri State Representatives and express your disgust. There is no need to tell them what state you’re from and it is encouraged not to tell them. For those that are interested in getting out and making your presence known I suggest going down to Jefferson City, MO at the Capitol building, in an organized way, and stage a protest or demonstration.

St. Louis Venerates Obama Over MLK

"Giving honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama" - Jamie Foxx

“Giving honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama” – Jamie Foxx

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

January 23, 2013

Initially I hadn’t planned on writing a piece concerning this year’s Martin Luther King Jr. March. But after a few days of thinking about the ridiculousness of our local organizers I felt that something had to be said. It’s really a shame that Democratic operatives have co-opted the holiday committee for MLK because this should be a day without “party lines”. After all, Dr. King was not a big proponent of the left-right paradigm.

In fact, at one point he said, “I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either.” With that being said, one might think that the committee would be nonpartisan. But apparently this is not so (or at least it is not a concern of the organizers). The reader will see shortly why I think there was a bias within the committee that originated from political elements.

This year, the Inauguration Day fell on the same date that we observe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. The holiday committee decided that since Dr. King’s birthday fell on Pres. Obama’s Inauguration Day, they would combine the festivities. While I believe that some on the committee genuinely thought this was a good idea, clearly there wasn’t much thought put into it.

A couple of days before the march I got word of what the organizers had planned to do. I was a little puzzled by this decision because of what I knew about Dr. King’s stance on war as opposed to the president’s actions the last four years. The whole time I couldn’t stop thinking, “If MLK were alive today, would he support the president’s policies concerning drone strikes, foreign intervention, and indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial or jury?” But at the end of the day I tried to give the organizers the benefit of the doubt and chalk it off as them wanting to honor two influential men of color.

I discussed this with a local activist and rapper named Rev Dellic, who also had the same concerns. Despite my reservations about the inauguration component, I decided to join with local activists to commemorate Dr. King. Admittedly a few of us also wanted to strike up conversations with Obama supporters to see what their thoughts were on the comparisons of these two men.

Rev and I decided that we would march with signs around our necks that read, “MLK had a dream…What is Obama’s dream?” We decided the best approach would be to pose a somewhat simple and nonthreatening question to open up dialogue.

As I made my way to the Old Courthouse, I hadn’t even gotten across the street to where everyone was meeting for the march, when my attention was immediately brought to a 10-12 foot tall Obama puppet standing with outstretched hands behind the ROTC choir. Besides the irony of the giant puppet, I found the whole situation awkward. Another thing that stood out to me was the fact that Obama was the predominant character despite the status of MLK.

At any rate, once we got over to the site of where the march would begin, we proceeded to put on our signs. Overall we had a 95% positive reception with a few double takes and a couple snide remarks. But by and large most people were indifferent to the question posed. To those that responded negatively or somewhat perturbed, they seemed to be going more on their emotions or the perception that we may give wearing a political sign at such an occasion. Of course the latter response is silly since the Democrats already politicized MLK Day by combining the inauguration with it.

One self-proclaimed “Anarchist” named James rode over on his bike to henpeck us on why these signs were inappropriate and polarizing towards nonwhites. His arguments weren’t totally illogical and he wasn’t being a jerk, however he was worried more about his agenda to proselytize African-Americans to Anarchism then our right to freely express ourselves. He also made this wild assumption that because some of us were white that we had no connection to the black community here in St. Louis. I couldn’t help but laugh on the inside when he said this.

While I get being sensitive to the culture of others, I don’t buy into the psychology of “white guilt”. My personal belief is that your motive for helping oppressed peoples should not come from a place of making penitence but out of love and the brotherhood of man. Needless to say James failed to convince us to remove the signs but he did successfully remind us that even some in the activist community censor themselves according to the other parties’ color of skin.

Another gentleman that was a little annoyed by our signs, got in my face and asked what I meant by the statement being made. I was a little caught off guard by his aggression but I proceeded to explain my position. Unfortunately, like I have to do every time I discuss Pres. Obama, I had to preface my argument by saying that the problem is his policies and not his hue. Once I got past the opening spiel, I told him that I believed that if Dr. King were alive today he would have denounced the president’s actions against foreign countries and the continuance of tyrannical “Bushian” policies.

This gentleman actually looked at me, with a straight face, and said, “It seems like we’re living in the past…” He also took issue with the sign and tried to charge us with not being forthright by simply posing a question. The guy said it was disingenuous and that “Obama is about peace because he brought the soldiers home from Iraq.” He further hashed out his argument by saying that MLK was against the Vietnam War but that this was a different time period altogether. The gentleman then attempted to counter my mention of the murderous drone strikes by saying, “France has taken over that.”

Defying logic and facts, this guy waved off the killing of women and children (that the president signed off on) by playing political hot potato and essentially telling us that we need to evolve on our views of foreign intervention. After he was done I started to note a few things that he seemed to be brushing aside but before I could say another sentence, he literally ran away like a cartoon character out of Looney Tunes.

Fact of the matter is, this man was a diehard Democrat and an Obama sycophant, who when Bush was in office opposed war and surely cried aloud about the civil rights violations of Gitmo prisoners. But now that he has someone that “looks” like him, he feels comfortable in playing identity politics (a charge that Dems attempt to put on the majority of whites on the right). Aside from the hypocrisy, he tried to obfuscate the truth.

It is inaccurate to say that America does not have “boots on the ground” in Iraq. We are still meddling in that country through private mercenary groups like Blackwater; which changed its name from XE to Academi.  Furthermore, as far as I know, the United States is still in full command over drone strikes in Pakistan and is waging other proxy wars in the Middle East and Africa. I haven’t the slightest clue where he got that France is now the sole villain in droning innocents.

Continuing on, a more peculiar moment was when we were approached by college students from UMSL that had no idea what the march was about. They said to us that their instructor told them to meet down at the Old Courthouse for a class assignment but didn’t tell them what the event was about. Although I thought this was incredible that they were oblivious to MLK Day and the presidential inauguration, I definitely could see how they could be confused considering all the mixed messages.

This confusion leads into the center of mine and other’s frustration with how this event was handled. It is my opinion that the two events should not have been combined or there should have been a distinction made. It seemed to run altogether and quite frankly Obama was the center of attention despite later marching for Dr. King. I can’t speak for everyone there but the Obama worship was creepy just as it was in DC. I was kind of expecting for people to form lines and patterns for their dictator. But I guess we’re not there yet.

Gun Control: Rooted in Racism

KKK 1

Zachary Cole

TyrannyWatch.org

When listening to the arguments of the gun grabbers you always have to separate the facts from the emotionalism. Take for instance the history of gun control in America and its racist roots. It is a fact that the first gun control lobbyists were the Klu Klux Klan wanting to keep firearms out of the hands of African-Americans. It should also be duly noted that the KKK were also Democratic operatives and so it should be no surprise that in 2012 the same party that wanted to disarm Blacks in the past, now want to try for it again on the general population. For those interested in information regarding the KKK being the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, read “A Short History of Reconstruction” by Dr. Eric Foner who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University.

Although some may scoff at this, even liberal minded people such as Adam Winkler, a UCLA professor, while researching his book “Gunfight” said, “It was a constant pressure among white racist to keep guns out of hands of African-Americans, because they would rise up and revolt. The KKK began as a gun control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns. During the Civil War, black owned guns for the first time – either they served in the Union Army and they were allowed to keep guns, or they buy guns on the open market where for the first time there’s hundreds of thousands of guns flooding the marketplace after the war. So they arm up because they know who they’re really dealing with in the South.”

By a historical perspective, it is apparent that the Second Amendment and the 13th Amendment are inseparable. In a British tract from 1774 called “Political Disquisitions”, it poignantly states, “The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.” Interestingly enough, this very idea was feared by Chief Justice Taney during his decision in the Dred Scott Case here in Missouri. Taney said, “For if they [Blacks] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens… It would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

I am willing to bet that the trendy hipster-types on the left have never even took the time to research the history of gun control and it’s correlation with racism. Of course, gun control has an even darker history if one delves into the subject of disarmament and democide. Many oppressive systems and wicked dictators have disarmed their people, take for instance Mao Zedong. He wrote, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Since many in the Democratic Party seem to admire Mao, even to the point of possibly being labeled a Maoist, we may have to forget about the idea of one being innocently ignorant. We may have to consider and settle on the fact that these people know what they’re doing and are out-of-control authoritarians.

This foolishness is not only coming from the establishment but is also coming from self proclaimed revolutionaries. When I encountered this for the first time I was a little surprised. I totally agree with the idea of being peaceful and having a revolution of ideas but what will happen when ideas are not enough? What will happen when an oppressive system becomes a hot tyranny? I just don’t see how one can be a revolutionary and also side with the gun grabbers. What will your defense be then? Will you pathetically use self-immolation such as the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc in protest? Or shall you stupidly stand in front of the tanks like the “unknown rebel” at Tiananmen and hope to have a better result?

No, none of these bold acts of self-sacrifice change the policies of the government that they wished to achieve. However, these people became icons for the struggle of free humanity. We must not engage in activist fairytales that fantasize about a band of ragtag rebels that takedown a huge system with a simple act of civil disobedience. One may be able to cite a few instances where a handful of people have successfully changed a bleak situation. But when we go down the corridors of history, we see in order to change an oppressive system it took a semi coordinated effort to get the results they wanted (and it wasn’t a group of two or three people tying themselves to a tree that made a difference).

The answer to all of this is the natural right to be able to defend yourself. Most of us in our lifetime will never have to do anything drastic that would require bloodshed. But those that want to keep us in line with their idea of governance will always resort to coercion and violence to achieve their goal for total world dominance. We should look at the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms as a defensive measure and not an offensive one. We should truly put into perspective the act of gun control for what it really is: Racist ordinances that have been repackaged for the enslavement of the general population and the assurance of power for an illegitimate ruling class. What side of history will you be on? Will you side with the gun grabbers hiding behind their false brand of liberalism? Or will you side with the people, who will resist the laws rooted in racism and class warfare?

Matrix of Terms: False Left-Right Paradigm

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Our first entry in the Matrix of Terms Series we will define what a false left-right paradigm is. In order to understand what this false paradigm is we must comprehend how a true paradigm is defined.

According to anthropology and political science, a left-right paradigm is a natural gravitation in society for people to divide into ideological opposites. A major proponent of this theory is a social anthropologist named Rodney Needham from Britain who believed that this was a basic human device. One can do further study into this subject with Needham’s 1973 work “Right and Left: Essays in Dual Symbolic Classification” (University of Chicago).

A false left-right paradigm is essentially two opposing groups who give the illusion of hopelessly polarizing worldviews but in reality, they share common goals in the overall scope of things (such as the direction of our country towards a global system). Usually these groups disagree on smaller divisive matters, which maybe real, to manipulate and rally the public behind one side or the other. The basic idea behind this practice is to keep people divided, powerless, and to maintain overall influence within their sphere. The Roman Empire was experts at this tool and although they no longer physically rule, their concepts still live. The false paradigm masterfully uses important issues like abortion, gay marriage, entitlement programs, etc. to distract the masses while they bulldoze bills, executive orders, contracts, etc. that usually constrict our freedom and destroy the sovereignty of our country.

The groups that use this tactic also are funded or influenced by many of the same organizations and institutions. It should be no surprise then, when one looks at former associations, donations, and other forms of support we find international financiers, corporations, etc. either running these groups or being benefitted in some way by them. A good example of this is in the European political system we see former Goldman-Sachs officials filling in positions of unelected power to help fix the financial crisis they helped create. The same example is true in America. Goldman-Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and people from the Federal Reserve fill in positions of authority. A simple investigation of presidential appointments within various administrations and with whom they surround themselves exposes a gaggle of technocrats and elitists.

The most common examples we see of the false left-right paradigm in Western politics are Democrats vs. Republicans, Liberal vs. Conservative, and as the term suggest Left wing vs. Right wing. Nowhere is the dynamic tension more apparent then what we see in the mainstream news. Many times, we see video clips of congressional debates or talk radio rants criticizing one group over another but once the cameras are gone, the doors are closed, the real nature of their relationships are revealed. A good example of this was the issue of raising the debt ceiling. When no one was quite as concerned about it there was a consensus between the two parties that it would have to happen. However, just as little as five months later the Republicans made a spectacle of it. This was nothing more then a dog and pony show because Harry Reid said earlier, “I want the Republicans to have some buy-in on the debt…They’re going to have a majority in the House. I think they should have some kind of a buy-in on the debt.” So there we have it, they knew they had to do this, they knew the Democrats had taken the dissension last time, and it was the Republicans turn to do the same. The false paradigm performs this same theatrics on any issue they want to steer. One side plays the “good guys” and the other side plays the “bad guys” depending on whose turn it is.

If we were to put forth a concise definition, it might read something like this: “A false left-right paradigm is a political stratagem that uses people’s natural propensity to belong to a like-minded group to drive public opinion and to change policies and laws to benefit their handler’s interests.