12 May 2009

Terrorism and Gun Control

Just five weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security released a statement with which we are all too familiar.  In this report they referred to those of us who “oppose gun control efforts” by the federal government and “criticize free trade agreements” as “rightwing extremists” and “terrorists”.  It didn’t stop there.  Those who believe the government is infringing on “civil liberties”, and those who oppose “abortion” and “same-sex marriage” are also lumped into the same category by the report.

Just 22 days later, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., sponsored H.R. 2159, a bill to allow the Attorney General the right of denial of firearms permits granted to anyone who “is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting,…or related to terrorism.”

It seems reasonable to believe that the Attorney General will consider a report by the Department of Homeland Security an appropriate means by which to label one who is related to terrorism.  This means that if this bill is passed into law, law abiding citizens who do nothing more than exercise their right and obligation to speak out against the unconstitutional behavior of our Federal Government may very well be denied the right to own and carry a firearm for the “defense of himself and the state”; their God given right, acknowledged by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of the state of Michigan.

This is a perversion and an all out attack against the principles our founding fathers established.  It is a maneuver designed to further empower those political thieves who have lied their way into office; those who must quickly advance the scope of their own power to keep from being discovered.  This is extreme anti-Americanism.  To deny the people the right to keep and bear arms is the height of terrorism itself as world history reveals very quickly to the objective student. 

It is the position of the US Taxpayers Party of Michigan, Michigan’s recognized affiliate of the national Constitution Party, that the Department of Homeland Security can effectively be replaced by a strong defense-only military combined with a constitutional militia, and a strong arm border patrol policy.  It is also its position that the “right to keep and bear arms” is essential to the maintenance of any free and civil society, and whenever that right is revoked, tyranny is likely to prevail.