Blue Collar Muse

Upon hearing his plan to create a “civilian national security force” I immediately assumed this was a significant step toward forming a National Militia. It is then but a small step — given the appropriate Supreme Court justice picks over the next several years — to rationalize and adjudicate the 2nd Amendment away from an individual right.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Does a civilian national security force equate to a well regulated Militia? It seems like it might with only a small spin applied. It could then become imperative that you turn over your [icky] firearms to this new security force — all in the name of greater security! (Almost goes without saying) Then only the ‘civilian defense force’ (controlled by whom, one wonders…) would require weapons, making the rest of us very safe indeed. Compliant perhaps. Docile, anyway. A little uneasy at the prospect of being defenseless, but hey, the Brits have gotten over it, haven’t they? And we must be good global citizens, after all.

After I heard this expensive plan, I did some reading and checked on some background information of several previous historical precedents. Germany, 1921-1933 was one, Soviet Union 1917-1991 was another. Cuba, Communist China, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile. uganda in the 1970’s. And their are many others that have used this type of recruitment to quiet opponents and subjegate the people. And always under a benovelent and peace driven CON- JOB. These “Armies” for the Despots never do what the are intended.

Why do we all have to continue to speculate about what he meant by a Civilian National Security Force? Why can’t anyone just ask him or his ‘people’? Why are we accepting a none response for such an important question? This question should be pressed upon him until we get a clear answer.
It’s as if he’s already the dictator and he doesn’t have to answer us.
ASK HIM.

@Rita -

Great idea!

And it’s been done. Both by myself when I wrote my original post back in July and by countless others. I obviously cannot speak for all those who asked the campaign about it, but those that I know of who did? Got no response …

Par for the course with this guy. I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the reason he’s light on details is that he’s not sure.

He’s made so many promises, he has to be chasing his tail trying to figure out how to keep them all.

@Velvet -

You earned it, Red. Good stuff.

@Oomingmak -

Ahhh, yes. The tolerant, benign Left. Now that your guy is in power, there’s a little less hesitancy to be nasty. Not like we didn’t understand your character earlier. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

As for your actual point, or more accurately, lack of one you obviously don’t read for information, you just scan for talking points.

The original post in this series didn’t define, one way or the other, what Obama meant by his cryptic July comments. It asked, “What in the world is this?” As I mentioned to another commenter, I and others asked the Obama campaign for clarification. No one, to my knowledge, was ever answered.

Then, after he wins, on his transition site we get a glimpse of his intent. It will be youth oriented and it will be mandatory Community Service. As has been noted elsewhere, you have to break several laws to get mandatory Community Service in these here parts. Where does Obama get off insisting my kids do anything.

Before anyone can really begin asking questions, the telltale entry is removed. Again leaving questions about just exactly what it is that Obama intends. If it’s just some Peace Corps program, instead of carping at people who are looking for information, why doesn’t he just tell us what he’s talking about? Kinda like that whole birth certificate thing, if it’s no big deal and there’s nothing to it, why continue to rile up those to whom he pledged “…I will be your President, too!”

Riiiiight …

No black heliopters, no tin foil, just simple questions that go unanswered day after day after day after day after day …

But I’m glad YOU think he’s just peachy for me and the country. After all, you present such a pleasant and reassuring picture of what an Obama supporter must be like that I’m sure Barack is excited to be represented by people just like you. And I’m reassured that if you are good enough for Barack, you must be good people for me, too …

Obama & Emmanuel’s Mandatory “Civilian National Security Force”

I always thought the euro model of compulsory military or “trade” service/training for young folks a good thing, having witnessed it first hand in Germany.  I’m torn on this one folks, someone smack the kool-aid from my lips!

…

THIS WILL HAPPEN IN THE USA SOON

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. “What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.

“The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle (AK-47), walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.

“All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?