Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 9:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: Eric Holder: Gun-grabbing opportunist
Sent: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:55 pm
Subject: Eric Holder: Gun-grabbing opportunist
Eric Holder: Gun-grabbing opportunist
Posted: March 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009 I'll leave it to the reader to settle on what poetic justice you would prescribe as regards Eric "nation of cowards" Holder over his intention to reinstate the expired federal assault weapons ban signed by President Clinton in 1994. This columnist already has a major beef with the prissy, grayish attorney general over his remarks vis-à-vis race relations in America, and firmly believes that they were calculated to set the stage for the Obama administration's prospective maneuverings in this area – a foreshadowing of things to come, as it were.
But that's another story. … During these times in which some of the most capricious and malignant individuals have come to influence the fate and fortune of the American people, I am indescribably grateful that – at least for the moment – I have the opportunity to widely convey my thoughts. It certainly beats seething and cursing in front of the brainsucker box until the massive coronary kicks in. So, until they find that kilo of Peruvian flake "hidden" under the seat of my car, you're stuck with me.
I've been a gun-rights advocate for decades now; as a former resident of the state of New York, I can attest firsthand as to how things tend to play out in a civil setting when the only people who have firearms are law enforcement, the privileged – and, of course, criminals. The only way our governments (federal, state and local) have been able to gain any leverage at all in the area of gun control has been through disinformation, emotionalism and the fact that Americans are not familiar with the Constitution. Second Amendment protections were put in place so that we could shoot operatives of an oppressive government, not deer.
Having cleared that up, suffice it to say that Eric Holder is but another floatie in the septic tank that is the Obama administration, albeit a pretty significant one. Another arrogant, smooth-talking, soulless suit, he is attempting to turn a case of gross government negligence into yet another opportunity to diminish our constitutional rights.
Reinstating the ban would obviously be a blatant violation of the Second Amendment, but what really rankles and demonstrates Holder's floatiness is the pretext:
The bloodbath occurring on our border with Mexico (due to the activities of drug cartels) now being reported was at least a year late in receiving press. Kidnappings and particularly gruesome murders along the border have been on the increase for at least two years, and they have not been restricted to participants in the drug trade. Misdirecting Americans from the fact that our government has done nothing but curry votes and dollars in addressing the problem of illegal immigration, Holder now says that reinstating the ban "will have a positive impact in Mexico" in that it will decrease the flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico. To add insult to injury, the attorney general had the temerity to blame Americans' affinity for street drugs, at least in part, for the border violence. How he did it with a straight face is anyone's guess.
Holder's logic is transparently fallacious as well as disingenuous; if our government can't keep drugs and people from coming in, how do they expect to keep guns from leaving? The answer is that they can't, but this is all moot, since it isn't a Mexico issue. It's a power issue. Holder's declarations are predatory political opportunism of the highest order – or is it the lowest?
A few words here on what does – and does not – constitute an "assault weapon." Primarily, assault weapons are semiautomatic rifles, in other words, those capable of firing multiple times without reloading. While some of these are "cut back" versions of military firearms originally designed to fire in full-automatic (machine gun) mode, nothing classified as an assault weapon is fully automatic. No doubt that confusion regarding this distinction among Americans has been a great boon to gun-control advocates in government.
Widespread bank failures, trillion-dollar bailouts and the specter of a possible depression were laughable prospects to most people a year ago. At this juncture, most Americans still believe that people disappearing in the night, cattle cars and gulags are so out of the realm of possibility as to be laughable. Yet, these things are not usually too far behind firearms seizures. How far might we be from that right now?
Those historic Marxist figures whom our president so admires implemented just such tactics. How much proof do we need that the "it can't happen here" mentality is all but begging for "it" to indeed occur?