Opposition to the Obama administration’s proposal to ban a popular bullet is gaining steam in the House of Representatives, where more than half of the lawmakers have signed a letter opposing the move.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says it wants to ban popular .223 M855 “green tip” ammunition because the bullets can pierce bulletproof vests used by law enforcement. Although the ATF previously approved it in 1986, the agency now says that because handguns have now been designed that can also fire the bullets, police officers are now more likely to encounter them. Some 239 members of the House have now put their names to the letter opposing the ban, which they say would interfere with Americans’ Constitutional rights.
Again Obama as a member of the pin headed intelligentsia movement believes that government is the answer to everything. The only real resistance that people have to stand up against an encroaching out of control government with an entire military at its beck and call is the Second Amendment. There is a reason that it’s the very next thing behind free speech created on the Bill of Rights so to ensure a free society. While I hope it never happens, I would never want to be vulnerable to a dictator like Obama who wants to treat the White House like a king’s throne and issue dictates while sucking on grapes with one leg tossed over a chair like a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. Property owners have to maintain the ability to protect their private property from invaders both foreign and domestic and that’s pretty much the end of the debate.
After the Obama administration used its Department of Justice to fuel the communist backed insurgency in Ferguson against the police, they don’t get a free pass to suddenly declare that they want to protect them from armor-piercing bullets. It is now well beyond refute that Obama’s White House has been the most anti-police administration ever to be president—so its not even believable that they are concerned about the lives of police when they’ve fueled the flames of anger that have actually killed police in places like New York after the Staten Island debacle and openly injected themselves into the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.
I live in an area of the country where the crime rate is extremely low. Now why do you think that is dear reader? It’s not because of the police, because we don’t even have a police department—it’s because nearly every home within ten miles of my home, which houses over 100,000 people—has an AR-15 or some variation of firearm—just in case they should need it. If there was a need a small well-equipped army could be gathered together in a day and cast upon insurgents, whoever they might be—and that is the key to the Second Amendment. Yes, we have the military, yes we have the police, but if they fail—because they are government employees after all, there is nothing left to protect people from aggression. The reason crime is low in my neighborhood is because everyone respects each other and no group of thugs can terrorize normal people because the guns make them the great equalizer. Only in places where guns are banned does violence increase and people live in terror. Places where there are lots of guns tend to be peaceful, their governments run better knowing they can’t gain leverage over the population through force, and economic activity can umbrella under such stable conditions.
But if there was in the future an even more radical president than Obama, such as the return of the Clintons or some other dynasty driven radical who decided they wanted to kill off their political rivals—which there is history of such activity, and those killers show up with armaments to perform the task under government backing—you can’t engage them with a cap gun. You need to have equal or superior firepower over your potential enemies to equalize the playing field.
To demonstrate the task lets study the behavior of a typical male 27-year-old police officer working traffic. He pulls over a car load of football players all in excess of 6 foot 3 out celebrating a recent victory. They have been drinking a bit, but nothing too crazy and speak coherently to the officer. The officer will treat the guys with respect because if he startles them into violence, it might get ugly, so he says sir a lot, and thank you for their cooperation, and the traffic stop will usually end with a warning and possibly an exchange of Facebook account information. The cop will go home that night with four new friends that just might get him into the next big game for free. Believe me, I know how the system works, as of this writing I’m almost 47 years old and I have still been pulled over more times by the police than there are years on my life. I’ve even been an employer to cops who thought they were really cool and actually left me to perform my next example. Say the same cop pulls over four girls coming back from the same game. The cop sees the girls have been drinking so they are a little flirtatious hoping to get out of a potential ticket. The cop knows that he has complete command of them backed by the law so if he wants to accuse them of some danger, he can pull all of them out of the car and frisk them to his heart’s content. Under the law, he knows the girls must do as he commands or they will be subject to resistance. So he threatens them with arrest which scares them and being girls obviously overpowered by a larger police officer with a gun, they submit, which feeds the ego of the cop. He then makes a deal to have the girls perform oral sex on him so they can get out of the ticket—which they do. After the cop goes back home drunk on power, the girls find some way to hide the information from their boyfriends and parents giving them a shameful secret they will have to suppress for the rest of their lives. What was the difference in the two cases? The football players would have likely beat the hell out of the cop if they detected they were being abused. The girls obviously wouldn’t stand a chance giving power completely to the cop.
Governments are always on the outlook for power. They want to be in control, which is why they are in government to begin with. The personality type who ventures into government employment tends to enjoy some variation of this control behavior over others. The ATF is certainly prone to such stories as the provided example, and they are prone to influence from radical presidents. The ATF has been involved many times in presidential invoked terrorism, Ruby Ridge comes to mind, the Waco incident, and obviously under Obama, Fast and Furious. It is nothing for some politician like Obama to designate someone, or a group of people as a threat to their careers and to send in a government agency like the ATF to remove that threat. It’s happened before, and it will happen again. And when it does, the target will want their .223 ammunition.
There is no such thing as a free and peaceful society without guns. Look at the rest of the world and that becomes very evident. Where guns are banned, violence is up, where there are the most guns, economic activity and personal living conditions are greatly improved. Those who want to impose gun control want to control the population at large by taking away the tools that make people equal to the potential insurgents. And the Obama administration so far is the worst that America has seen in this regard. But imagine a worse regime. I thought Bill Clinton’s presidency was bad. Obama has moved the needle much further to the political left. But imagine a world where Obama looks like a conservative? It is for them that something even more powerful than the .223 ammunition will be needed, because they will send their government agents to enforce their will. And all that stands between tyranny and freedom is a gun rack and a lot of ammunition.