All of a sudden anti-gun Obama has a love affair with the shiny copper-clad—almost all hollow point—ammo for handgun and rifles. Millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition in all sizes and shapes. WHY?...

Fox News asked the government why
they're buying 1.6 billion rounds of
ammo. The government lied. No surprise.
Here's the reason. Be prepared.
by Jon Christian Ryter
Everyone knew it, but few had the guts to ask why the federal government was embarking on an ammunition buying spree. All of a sudden anti-gun Obama has a love affair with the shiny copper-clad—almost all hollow point—ammo for handgun and rifles. Millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition in all sizes and shapes. After far right conservative radio talk show host Alex Jones raised the specter of an "arms race against the American people," adding that the government was ",,,gearing up for total collapse; they're gearing up for huge wars" Fox News began to ask questions. Jones was part right and part wrong. He's right that the US government has embarked on an arms and ammunition race with the American people. Why? Because the Obama Administration and the US government are deathly afraid of the American people. Anytime a government fears its people, history has shown it will always disarm that public.

On April 17, 1775 the British sent troops to Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. Their job was to seize all of the arms, musket balls and black powder that John Hancock had stored in his warehouses in Concord. The day before, on April 16, 1775 British Major General Thomas Gage signed two arrest warrants, believing when he arrested the two ringleaders of the rebellion—Hancock and Samuel Adams—and hung them in the public square, resistance to the crown would die quickly. Instead, as British Col. Francis Smith split his troops into two forces, sending the smaller group to Lexington to arrest Adams and the larger to to Concord to arrest Hancock and seize the weapons and ammunition in his warehouse, the Minute Men ambushed both forces, and in an unorthodox style of fighting which the British had never encountered and could not overcome, the colonial militia drove the redcoats back to Boston. On April 20, 1775 the colonial militia laid siege to the city. On March 17, 1776 the redcoats surrendered and, under a flag of truce, the British, now unarmed, evacuated Boston.

At the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, Patrick Henry said, "We should never forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists." And, the American people have not forgotten.

It is important for the American people to understand one thing about Barack Obama. He is an avid student of history. As he studied at Occidental College and at both Columbia and Harvard, Obama learned one immutable fact about history. While it is a chronology of the past, it is the best tactical political map to predict—or alter—the future. Obama has studied the biographies of men like Abraham Lincoln (who erased the Constitution of the United States for over four years and became America's first dictator), Vladimir Lenin, Franklin D. Roosevelt (America's second dictator who created blameless bureaucrats in an illusionary fourth branch of government ), Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler (the only dictator to topple a constitutional republic) examining their successes and failures. In Obama's mind, he reasoned if he could avoid the pitfalls that brought down men like Lincoln, Lenin and Hitler, he could become "president for life." Dicators today don't call themselves "dictator." The prefer the title "President" since it sounds more democratic. Make no mistake about it, that is Obama's goal. And, make no mistake about it that Obama is an illegal alien—Kenyan by birth and a subject of the British crown, adopted by Indonesia as a naturalized citizen of that nation—who now resides in the White House, realizes his problems will begin when he is out of office and no longer controls the nation's top cop, the federal courts, and the military.

One of the things about Hitler that stuck with Obama was Hitler's German Weapons Act of 1938 that replaced Germany's 1928 gun law which required, but allowed, all German citizens to acquire a permit to buy a gun. In 1935, German Jews were no longer considered "citizens," thus a new law was needed to clarify who could, and who could not, own a gun. The 1938 law required gun manufacturers and dealers to keep a record of those who purchased guns by serial number. This information was forwarded to the Gestapo. If someone who was not supposed to have a gun—or ammunition for a gun—was able to buy one, it was equally as hard on the gun dealer as it was the gun buyer. This was the registration that brought about the seizure of all weapons and ammunition from working class Germans. Only trusted party officials of the central government or the states within Germany were exempt from the seizure when it occurred.

On March 18, 1938 when Hitler issued the edict which immediately became law (hmmm...that's a lot like Obama issuing Executive Orders to create "laws" that Congress is not willing to enact), he said: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjects to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is sine qua non [something essential] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So lets not have any native militia or police."

I guess that's why America's fourth President, James Madison said: "A government that doesn't trust it's law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust." His predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, said: "Laws that forbid the carrying of guns disarm only those whoa re neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant. They serve to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

L. Neil Smith (in The Probability Broach) rejected that "...armed people are free. No State can control those who possess the will to resist. No mob can take their liberty and property...People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they are begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men will always automatically be right. Guns ended that. A social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."

Even during the days of Washington and Jefferson, the Federalists attempted to outlaw the private ownership of guns, arguing that in the greatest cities of Europe, the populations live safely unarmed. Gun ban advocates—almost all federalists—who were determined flip the balance of power away from the States by making the States subservient to the dictates of the central government, knew they would never succeed as long as free men possessed the right to own firearms. Tench Coxe, a Whig who voted with the Federalists because of his friendship with Federalist Alexander Hamilton, argued on the floor of Congress on June 18, 1789 that "...civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens. The people are confirmed by [the Bill of Rights] in their right to keep and bear private arms."

As we can see, the "ban the guns" debate is not a new one. Opponents of gun rights have existed in America since our nation's birth. Beginning in 1787, the gun-ban advocates were Federalists. Today they still are, only today we call them "liberals" or "social progressives." The patriots who met the redcoats in the woods between Lexington and Concord on April 17, 1775 are what we call "conservatives" today. If you are politically a liberal today, you would have been a "Loyalist" if you lived during the American Revolution. Or, if you're a radical leftwinger, you would have been a "Tory."

And, if you were a Tory, you wouldn't have been a big fan of the Constitution in 1787, either. The same way you likely aren't a big fan of it today if you are a social progressive. Most leftwingers today believe that the old, worn-out parchment died almost two centuries ago and should have been buried. That's why social progressive judges today reinterpret the Bill of Rights at will (a right they do not possess) by coupling it with other amendments, with unrelated pieces of legislation and, in the case of freedom of religion, with a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist leaders in Danbury, Massachusetts in which he said, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." In desperation, the US Supreme Court used Jefferson's verbally illustrated "wall of separation" in Reynolds v US 98 US 145 in 1879 to deny the free exercise claims of the Mormons. Every Justice on the Supreme Court who violated the Bill of Rights by voting for Reynolds should have been impeached and removed from the bench.

Once they discovered they could use anything from McGuffey's Reader to Tales From the Darkside to "update" the Constitution to meet today's societal needs, social progressive judges did just that. There's too much gun violence. Take guns, or the bullets that kill, out of the equation and there's no gun violence. Of course, if you take guns and ammunition out of the equation there's no liberty, either. But that is, in the long run, the core of objective of every government in the world. A disarmed public is an obedient public. Government is more concerned about gun violence than liberty. Liberty is something the human chattel cherish so dearly they will die so their families may have it. The pedigreed elite, who owned the land, the factories, and the jobs, already possess it and believe it's their right to dole out freedom like a retractable gratuity to those who obey their edicts.

Surprising, that very debate—and the attempt to disarm the population to make them easier to rule—has been going on since long before firearms were the weapon of voice of warriors. On Aug. 29, 1558 the Japanese Shogun, Toyotomi Hideyoshi made this decree: "The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprisings."

Now that we've explored almost 500 years of weapons theory, we can see why [a] the Founding Fathers inserted into the Constitution of the United States the inherent right of the American people to own and bear arms, and [b] why the left feels they have the right to abrogate gun ownership under the illusionary Commerce Clause because guns kill.

The State believes it has the right to arbitrarily decide that we, as a whole People, have collectively abused the right to own firearms because .0001% of the people have abused it. The State repeatedly tries to legislatively repeal that right, or place whatever restrictions or limitations on gun ownership they can push through Congress. If Congress proposed and passed a resolution to add a 29th Amendment that would repeal or greatly diminish our rights under the 2nd Amendment that somehow made it through Congress, it would never clear the States since as a rule, the American redcoats "own" 18 States (Let me amend that statement. It would never clear in an honest vote in the State legislatures. But the 16th and 17th Amendments should never have become law, either. Billions of dollars in graft changed hands to get votes for both amendments. In the end, it was fraud that certified them.) The pro-gun conservatives usually take 32 States. Anyway you look at it, the social progressives can't get 3/4 of the States to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Thus, the next best thing has been to simply enact new laws which on their face are unconstitutional since the federal government assumes, the 10th Amendment notwithstanding, that they have the right under the Commerce Clause, to enact whatever laws they need to protect them from the people, or the people from themselves.

When Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt found himself the victim of an attempted assassination by Guiseppe Zangara on Feb. 15, 1933, two weeks before he became the 32nd President of the United States, he reacted by having the New Deal Congress enact the National Firearms Act of 1934 which forbade gun owners from modifying their weapons so they could more easily be concealed. The law ended up on the docket of the US Supreme Court as United States v Miller (307 US 174). Not only did the high court find that FDR's US v Miller was unconstitutional, they found it so on an 8-0 vote with Associate Justice William O. Douglas, a close friend of FDR's abstaining. All of the court's liberals voted to protect the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The decision stunned the Roosevelt Administration when the justices said the Founding Fathers crafted the 2nd Amendment specifically because they were convinced that somewhere down the road into the history the people of the United States might have to fight an oppressive government to retain their liberty and, therefore, it was in the best interests of the nation that the people be as well-armed as its government. US v Miller was the 32nd gun rights case to reach the Supreme Court. Heller v US in 2008 was the 64th. The gun foes are pretty much batting "zero." Which is what, last year, made them rethink their strategy on how to punish legal gun owners for owning weapons. And of course, at the same time, figure out in the long run, how to take their guns away from them.

In Chicago, Cook County President Toni Preckwinke spearheaded the effort to insert a violence tax on Cook County gun owners by inserting a measure in Chicago's 2013 budget to assess legal gun owners with a tax of $25 on each weapon they own per year, and taxing them 5¢ per bullet for every bullet purchased. (The violence tax on the smallest container—50 rounds—is $2.50. Buy a 500-round brick and the violence tax is $25.00.) It's important to note that if Cook County is able to accurately assess every box of ammo you purchase for every weapons you own, it means the communists in Washington and the communists at State level will have been able to institute a gun registration program in Illinois.

Evil ambitious men know before they can rule men they must subdue them. Be certain you understand why those who claim they want only to make the community more safe, work in stealth to take away from men their right under the first law of nature—the right of self defense. Once the right of the people to keep and bear arms is prohibited, history has shown that liberty is always annihilated and men become the human chattel of government.