I have heard and read a good deal about a UN Convention on Small Arms Trade, a Treaty that some allege could ultimately result in the banning of firearms held by private citizens in the United States. While I’m not certain that such a treaty could affect domestic gun rights, the idea is that such a treaty, ratified by the Senate, effectively becomes Constitutional law. This argument is based on the notion that when the US enters into a treaty, it’s binding upon the government just like a constitutional amendment, although there are existing precedents in opposition to that view, including Reid v. Covert. Imagining that such a treaty would disparage our 2nd Amendment rights, were such a thing to eventuate, who doubts but that some leftist in charge would enforce it as such, or that a Supreme Court led by the likes of John Roberts would uphold it as superseding our 2nd Amendment? Who doubts that a Congress led by such cowards as now occupy those positions would subserviently enact all the funding mechanisms to support enforcement? Rep. Benjamin Quayle(R-AZ,) and co-sponsor Todd Akin(R-MO) have introduced the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012, (H.R. 5846,) in response to this threat. It’s going nowhere.
The Treaty in question is being written as we speak, and while we don’t know its content, anything that would impinge upon our domestic rights would be a real attack on the Second Amendment the likes of which would be unprecedented in American history. Then again, Obama-care was an attack on individual liberties unprecedented in history. Clearly, that there exists no precedent does not preclude a thing from being done, does it? All my life, I have heard a fair number of oaths including the phrase “my cold, dead hands,” that being the condition in which the persons professing said sentiment would enter before their guns would be taken from them. I’m not a betting man, but I personally believe most would turn in their guns without much more than a whimper. I think a diabolical leader of ill intent would know that too, and I believe he’d be willing to test the thesis. My question for you is simply: “Would Americans actually fight?”
This has always been my question, in fact, because I’ve been around long enough to know that many will say things that sound awfully tough, in terribly solemn tones in the first instance, but that most won’t live up to the billing in the second. Most mature people are relatively risk-averse, and when they consider handing over their guns to maintain a nervous peace versus the idea of actually beginning a second war for Independence against an[other] aggressive government, I think most so-called “fearless Patriots” might just chicken out. After all, by a slow process of incrementalism, the American people have let many of their liberties go without much more than a protest march or two, and not much more than a temporary backlash at the polls. I believe a rabid Marxist holding the reins of power would realize this too, as would his committed communist pals, and I think such a leader would be more than willing to go all the way and call some bluffs. In fact, I think such a villain would see it as a win-win: If he calls the bluffs of the American people on this and they should happen to fold, he would have rid the country of guns, and made the American people defenseless in their own homes. If he calls the bluffs, but they turn out not to be a bluff, he would have a good excuse to declare martial law, perhaps cancel elections, and wipe out a few hard-core conservatives along the way, if there is anything less than a perfectly united stance by American conservatives.
You might wonder why I am raising this issue now, and it surely arises in part from the recent talk over the treaty in question, but I am also asking the question because I’ve seen signs that we have no small number of surrender monkeys who call themselves “conservative.” If the day should ever arrive when gun confiscations actually begin, and there is a resistance, it will fail if conservatives don’t act – not talk – in lockstep. That would be a big play by by such a tyrant, for all the marbles, but it would also be a big play by Americans. It would be truly a matter of pledging their “lives and their sacred honor,” because any such battle would commence a counter-counter-revolution. What you learn from a lifetime of observation is that he who is more consistently committed wins every battle, every war, and every fight of any sort. This is why I have cause to worry: I think many people make many professions by which may not abide when push comes to shove.
After all, if such a resistance were to break out, you would scarcely receive news of it. Such a leader would use that new Internet shut-down switch to cut off that means of news dissemination. He would order the FCC to shut down all cell phones, and shortly, all wired calls, broadcast, cable and satellite, along with radio, and the only thing you might be able to dial would be 9-1-1, or if you had a shortwave radio, begin to exchange information before the jamming commenced in earnest . It’s what emergency exercises are intended to test. Remember? Neither would be trusted all law enforcement, nor all military. Too many are Oath-Keepers(though not nearly enough for my comfort.) What would result after a day or two is that the brain-addled multitudes would demand the restoration of their cable, their Internet, their phones, and their blessed text messages, so they would join the chorus from the left to put down any rebellion. Think about it. Fools all, yes, but fools who would provide a runaway government with every excuse it might ever need.
Every person must establish his or her own bright line across which government must not tread, or admit from the outset that he or she is a willing slave, but in the main, they do not admit it, and they make their lines dimly, and cover them over in hasty retreat when pressed. The singularly most pressing reason to raise this at this time is that I believe too few have actually considered all those oaths about “cold dead hands,” and what they would actually demand. After all, what that phrase implies is a willingness to literally enter a state of war against a runaway government that would claim legitimacy by virtue of some black-robed moron’s judgment, or some heat-of-the-moment command from a would-be tyrant. Any who take such things too lightly wouldn’t be the sort to be counted on in any case, because anybody who conceives of such things without deep prior contemplation of consequences isn’t very serious about it. Australia was a nifty experiment for the global gun-grabbers, and they saw how the cold-dead-handers reacted there. In a virtual flash, Australia was disarmed. Has Australia undergone a violent revolution? Have they repealed such measures? If so, I’ve not read about it.
If you wonder what the radical communist left would count on, considering the hundreds of millions of guns and the eighty-million or more firearm owners as an obstacle to their plotting, you might wish to give a thought or two to this. While alleged patriots who may or may not adhere to all of those oaths continue to make them, the radical left is surely plotting for the day in which they will make this a reality. Larry Grathwohl’s story of three decades ago hasn’t changed, and some of the very people about whom he had been concerned are now members of government. The question is whether they’ve thought this through, and I believe you can assume they have, and that’s something upon which I’m willing to bet. Our founders must have been much more extraordinarily brave than we credit them with having been. Now go consider all those oaths anew. Did you really mean them? Time may tell. Something to ponder.