Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

Many U.S. administrations have sought to disarm the American Public over the years, using every possible specious argument. Indeed the only arguments available to government are specious (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: 1 Superficially plausible, but actually wrong. 2. Misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive).

Indeed, there can be no true argument for disarmament. Our founders placed the 2nd amendment into the Constitution for these United States for a specific reason. That reason is the prevention of tyranny. No domestic arms control program in history has led to anything but tyranny and democide (the killing of any person or people by a government including genocide, politicide and mass murder.) Let me reiterate, Domestic disarmament has NEVER led anywhere but democide. Even some of the most enlightened governments of history have resorted to it. Democide is the leading cause of unnatural death on this planet in the past 100 years.

Our current elected government has given us no reason to believe they would reject that route and indeed have acted and legislated as if it were their intent. Many of their supporters have even called for it, publically proclaiming a desire that their political opponents be killed for their opinions. The current Attorney general is so confused and politically maladroit that he could not utter a single one-word response of “No” when asked if he believed the President was authorized to execute American citizens without due process of law. The evasive answer is not an indication that the President desires to do so, but it is an indication that someone, somewhere in government, is considering or not wanting to exclude the possibility.

The political history of these United States since the administration of Roosevelt the Elder has been one of ever increasing, provable government intrusion, and repression by BOTH political parties, without qualification. Recent history has seen the development of technological means of repression, intrusion, and ever-stronger measures by BOTH political parties controlling our government to render us into a state of despotism. The continuous attempts to legislate application as to the use of this technology on U.S. citizens has brought us to an even greater state of distrust of government AT ALL LEVELS. The addition of even more attempts at incremental domestic disarmament has exacerbated the distrust to a level that is barely tolerable.

That the Founders desired the people have sufficient personally controlled military power to successfully challenge the government is not disputable. Many of them clearly wrote exactly that and actively encouraged the citizenry to consider the option. Many in government say that we are “more enlightened” and less at threat than in those days. Some also say that the idea of citizens being capable of challenging a modern military is ludicrous. As shown by their ACTIONS, our government is more liable than ever to desire imposing a tyranny on the people, and any that think private citizens without sophisticated heavy weapons cannot effectively challenge a modern standing military are invited and encouraged to ask the 48,430 dead and wounded U.S. Military members from the “Global War on Terror” how they feel about that concept.

So, all of you government officials, functionaries, and statist sympathizers from both the Republican and Democrat Parties who ask why we as rational, reasonable people could possibly want our semiautomatic “assault rifles”.

We do not trust you.

Samuel R. Damewood writes from Alamogordo, New Mexico