By Chuck Baldwin
May 12, 2009
First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New
York congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger"
to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now.
As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported
Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list:
the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act,
a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on
demand, or illegal immigration.
The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his
position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as
potentially dangerous "extremists."
As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people
would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be
watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second
Amendment rights to everyone listed above.
According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos
labeling everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal
rights activists, and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential 'extremism.'
"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the
attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm
transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun
might be used in connection with terrorism.
"Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second
Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being 'dangerous.'
WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, "By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's
terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the
DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009."
Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second
Amendment rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done."
Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through
which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159.
Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that
those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of
people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation?
This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and
possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led.
I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord,
Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the
"shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people
their right to keep and bear arms.
I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms
nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential
"extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the
threat of gun confiscation has become?
If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian
President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former
Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He
is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do,
we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said
it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will
be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)
This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many
would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?
As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate,
discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.