Who Would the State Arm?

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson

As expected, the Republican Senate leadership sold supporters of the Second Amendment down the river in a, you cover my crimes against the Constitution, I’ll cover yours, agreement to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General. The agreement was reportedly reached when Holder agreed to not seek criminal charges against agents of the state (CIA etc.) who participated in the torture of suspected terrorists at Gitmo.

Holder has a long history of opposition to the Second Amendment; he supports federal licensing of handgun owners, rationing gun sales, national gun registration, notifying the BATFE of every firearms purchase, and denying firearms purchases to anyone who might find their way on to any secret government "watch list."

Holder has stated his belief that no one under the age of 21 should ever have access to a firearm. Of course he would not extend this prohibition to servants of the state, specifically those in the military. He would have no problem implementing the desires of the state on others, at gunpoint.

The state and the MSM, (do I repeat myself) scream from the rooftops the necessity of disarming American citizens so no one will ever be subjected to violent crime. Yet, the state endorses arming convicted felons as long as they are members of their enforcement arm, the US Military.

Convicted felons in the military, bearing firearms to commit atrocities and murders for the state, are readily accepted into the fold. Having already committed a violent crime puts one on the proper career path and in line for possible promotion. The state will immediately see violent felons are provided with fully automatic weapons and explosives; similar possession is forbidden if by law-abiding civilians.

These state-armed felons are mandated to attend a "warrior transition" course" in order to comply with Army Regulations. Once in the employ of the state, these new warriors are no longer referred to as "felons," but instead, those who have participated in "serious criminal misconduct." Misconduct covers a lot of serious, violent crimes in the eyes of the master.

A prudent person would wonder if the perpetrator of "serious criminal misconduct" will be advanced in grade to the rank of E-4 upon enlistment, for "civilian acquired skills" as listed in Army Regulation 601-210 (para 7-12a).

Interesting indeed are the criminal misconduct acts that are willing to be forgiven by the state should one decide to become a uniformed supporter. Under 4-9, the following criminal acts, among others, are excused, "discharging a firearm through carelessness or within municipal limits, killing a domestic animal, poaching, shooting from the highway, using unlawful identification, and violation of fish and game laws."

Accepted under 4-10, are the following, "carrying of a weapon on school grounds, desecration of the American flag, domestic battery/violence, false bomb threat, looting, prostitution or solicitation of prostitution, selling or leasing weapons, reckless endangerment, eluding police, unlawful carrying of concealed firearm, and willfully discharging a firearm so as to endanger life."

Under 4-11, we find additionally accepted criminal acts: "assault with a dangerous weapon, carnal knowledge of a minor, child abuse, Hate crimes, indecent acts with a minor, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, perjury or subornation of perjury, rape, incest or criminal sexual abuse, robbery, possession with intent to use a bomb or other explosive device, terrorist threats and violation of civil rights."

One must wonder: would any criminal activity prohibit state employment?

Troubling indeed is the increasing number of gang members serving in the military. The fact the state has no problem training and arming violent criminals and gang members for deployment on America’s streets, should make all who believe in freedom very, very afraid.

The message here is abundantly clear: the state has no problem with criminals (birds of a feather you know) having guns, explosives, and training in the use of both, as long as they are willing to support the state. It does have a problem with anyone arming themselves who might seek to limit the state and its unconstitutional, criminal pursuits.

If the above does not shake you from your post-election euphoria, please drop me a postcard from the gulag in the more than likely event you get caught up in some "rapidly developing new program."