Obama, Hillary Toying With ‘Civil War’ Over Gun Confiscation

by AWR Hawkins

On November 2, The Daily Beast pointed to recent statements from President Obama and Hillary Clinton regarding the implementation of Australian-style gun confiscation and suggested “civil war could erupt on American soil” if any administration actually tried to confiscate privately owned firearms.

The Daily Beast theoretically agreed that “confiscation on a massive scale” may be “the only way to solve American gun violence,” but they pointed out that it was not realistic and suggested Hillary risks causing irreparable divisions by talking about confiscation then mocking gun owners as conspiracy theorists waiting for “black helicopters” to come take their guns away.

According to The Daily Beast, confiscation was workable in Australia because there was no Second Amendment and the government only had to take 650,000 guns. That is a far cry from the “350 million” believed to be in Americans’ hands.

Yes, “350 million.”

But even more important than the number of guns is the depth of American “devotion” to them. And The Daily Beast observes that it is this devotion–this dedication to the philosophy and tradition underlying the right to keep and bear arms–that turns the mere mention of confiscation into something that could literally rip the country apart.

The Daily Beast put it thus, “The prospect of confiscation—as much as it might, theoretically, reduce drastically or even eliminate gun crime altogether—is simply impossible in the United States.” They pointed to statements by Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson, who stressed that Jews could have curtailed the Holocaust had they retained their guns. The Daily Beast suggests Carson hit on something “Second Amendment enthusiasts are fond of arguing,” namely, “that gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution not only for the sake of hunters or people who want to protect their homes and businesses from criminals, but also to allow the population to resist an overreaching government.”

Breitbart News previously reported that Founding Father James Madison used Federalist 46 to make that very point–that armed citizens could band together and resist their government, should it tend toward tyranny. And he pointed out that this demonstrated American exceptionalism inasmuch as citizens of other nations, lacking arms, also lacked the ability to resist.

The Daily Beast addressed the way Hillary mentioned confiscation only later to mock gun owners for fearing the government might come after their guns:

Clinton can joke all she likes about Americans fearing “black helicopters” taking their guns away, but it is no exaggeration to suggest that civil war could erupt on American soil were the U.S. government to attempt anything remotely resembling what was done in Australia.

The column in The Daily Beast is aptly titled, “Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away.”

Republic vs. Democracy: Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

Republic vs. Democracy

Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman’s inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Not only have we failed to keep it, most don’t even know what it is.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution).   A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule).   A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the House, Senate, Executive (President or Governor), The Supreme Court, and individual jurors (jury-nullification).   Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums.   Voter referendums allow legislators to blame bad law on the people.   A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob.

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury.   To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority.   As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive.   When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true.   The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy.   They repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a Republic.

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution “guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government”…. Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution.   Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths…”,

“We may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.   It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

“A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.   There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men.” Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

• A government of the masses.
• Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
• Results in mobocracy.
• Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights.
• Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
• Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

• Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
• Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
• A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
• Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
• Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
• Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal.   Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce.   Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation’s wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good.   Many of F.D.R.’s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,

“Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference”.