Distribute Widely and Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

You know, Condoleezza, I used to think that you are intelligent, properly-educated, and kind of cute. Now, after the incredibly idiotic remark it was reported that you made last weekend (“I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons.”) I have some serious doubts. I still have trouble believing you are that stupid, or that ignorant of American and world history, so it’s fairly clear that this failure on your part is thought-out and deliberate, and that you are one of the bad-guys.

That’s very sad.

People on the wrong side of this issue frequently blather that America’s Founding Fathers—who, for the most part, were aware only of single-shot muzzle-loading rifles and pistols—couldn’t have imagined civilians armed with automatic or semiautomatic weapons. On the contrary, what the Founding Fathers couldn’t have imagined is a time when ordinary citizens are forbidden to own and carry weapons fully as capable as those of the military, defeating the entire purpose of the Second Amendment. They understood what you and others like you pretend not to, that military weapons in civilian hands are for preserving civil rights and civilian lives. As leftists continuously whimper, they are, indeed “weapons of war”: humanity’s 10,000-year-old continuing war against tyranny.

So I’ll repeat: military weapons in civilian hands are for preserving civil rights and civilian lives. They are, indeed “weapons of war”: humanity’s 10,000-year-old continuing war against tyranny. I have lived through the terms of twelve United States Presidents, at least half of whom I did not trrust, and who made me extremely glad there’s a Second Amendment to act as a continuous deterrent. The President you worked for had even liberals buying guns and reading the Constitution. Happily, any warm, pleasant dreams that he or any of the others may have cherished about slapping down a recalitrant peasantry would have been dashed by the icy cold water of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s apocalyptic vision of America consisting of “a rifleman behind every blade of grass”.

Military weapons in civilian hands are for preserving civil rights and civilian lives. I repeat it once again so you can get it through your statist head. They are, indeed “weapons of war”: humanity’s 10,000-year-old continuing war against tyranny. Don’t tell me that it can’t happen here. It already has. When the BATFE and the FBI, both organizations without Constitutional standing, ignored Yamamoto’s warning and illegally imprisoned and murdered 76 innocent individuals in their church near Waco, Texas, in the Spring of 1993, simply because they wouldn’t come outside when ordered to by a gang of jackbooted thugs, the armed citizenry may have lost that particular battle, but the people inside held the feds off for 51 days, and government lost the war in general, as shown clearly by the final resolution of the Bundy Ranch Standoff in Nevada.

Military weapons in civilian hands are for preserving civil rights and civilian lives. They are, indeed “weapons of war”: humanity’s 10,000-year-old continuing war against tyranny. Our Revolutionary ancestors actually had better guns—Pennsylvania rifles—than the British, armed with smoothbore muskets. Imagine a world in which the Armenians had been as well armed as the Turkish military. Imagine a world in which the Jews in Germany had been armed as well as the SS or the Wehrmacht. Imagine a world in which the Cambodian people had been armed as well as Pol Pot’s murderous thugs. According to research published years ago by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (look it up), every major act of genocide in the last century was preceded by sweeping gun control laws.

Military weapons in civilian hands are for preserving civil rights and civilian lives. They are, indeed “weapons of war”: humanity’s 10,000-year-old continuing war against tyranny. For better or worse, Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull showed us what would happen if Indians (that’s what they call themselves) were armed as well as the US Seventh Cavalry. Now, Condoleezza, imagine a world in which ordinary Africans had been armed as well as those who kidnapped and enslaved them. With vermin like Anti-fa roaming the streets, smashing windows, throwing Molotov cocktails, and crushing the skulls of innocent people, especially with politically correct police “standing down”, the need for an effectively-armed citizenry is greater than ever.

Military weapons in civilian hands are for preserving civil rights and civilian lives. They are, indeed “weapons of war”: humanity’s 10,000-year-old continuing war against tyranny. Tell me, Condoleezza, if you can, what the hell does any of this—preventing future mass murders like those in Armenian Turkey, the Nazi Holocaust, or Cambodia (and at least a dozen other places—look that up, too)—have to do with “toxic masculinity”, as prissy, self-righteous male lesbian college professors at Princeton and similar wretched hives of scum and villainy would have it?

This culture desperately needs more guns in the hands of more individuals, as the Founding Fathers intended, not fewer. Ther weren’t “too many” guns at Columbine, there were too few. And many more of them should be “military” in configuration. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is a billion dollar government agency dedicated to disarming the American people, destroying the firearms market, and the absurd and contradictory proposition that you can regulate a fundamental right. Its very existence is a violation of the Second Amendment and evidence of how badly that amendment is needed.

Call me an extremist if you will; my views are entirely consistent with those of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason, among others, America’s “Authors of Liberty”. I’ll say it one more time: military weapons in civilian hands are for preserving civil rights and civilian lives. They are, indeed “weapons of war”: humanity’s 10,000-year-old continuing war against tyranny.