BETWEEN THE LINES

DE FACTO GUN CONTROL

Exclusive: Joseph Farah traces government's path to 'a monopoly on force'

Published: 1 hour ago by JOSEPH FARAH
How would a tyrannical leader of the United States impose strict new gun control on a resistant, well-armed citizenry without the approval of Congress and in spite of the constitutional prohibitions?

I’ll tell you how.

He would have the government buy up all the arms and ammo – leaving next-to nothing for local police departments and self-reliant citizens to fight over.

That is, quite possibly, part of the motivation for the Department of Homeland Security’s sudden, otherwise inexplicable buying binge for firearms Barack Obama would like to deny mere citizens and almost unimaginable quantities of ammunition that has left police departments so short of rounds they have been forced to stop target practice and rationed supplies of the most popular kinds of bullets.

If you doubt me, just go to your favorite local dealer of arms and ammunition and see what’s available. Everywhere you look you will be limited to a few boxes of the ammo of your choice.
Yes, it’s true the public has been on a buying binge, too. That was precipitated by Obama’s threats to ban broad new classifications of firearms and ammunition.

But now, on top of that, we learn that Homeland Security is buying billions of rounds of the very choicest ammunition.

What good are guns without ammo?

There is a near panic already setting in among firearms dealers, gun enthusiasts, ranges and self-reliant citizens who fear the worst.

No, I don’t expect Obama and the Democratic Party to stop championing draconian legislation. But they are taking no chances here. What else could explain the unquenchable appetite of Homeland Security for firearms and ammunition?

What are they anticipating?

What kind of an uprising are they expecting?

This is a domestic and supposedly civilian agency. Why does it need billions of rounds of ammunition – enough to put at least six slugs in the body of every American citizen?
One of the things DHS could be doing is enacting de facto gun control.

It’s a way for the government to achieve a monopoly on force – something America’s founders feared and thought they put to rest when they approved the Bill of Rights, declaring self-defense to be one of the unalienable, God-endowed liberties of free men and women.

If I’m right, keep your eye out for more of these bulk purchases by government. Ammunition manufacturers can’t keep up with the demand – much of it stimulated with your own taxpayer dollars.

Not only is Obama intent on taking more of your money, he’s using it to deny you your right to self-defense and quelling any risk of armed resistance to his fast and furious gun grab.
We’re in a pickle, folks.

Notice that the legislation being drafted to deny you the very best and most efficient firearms for personal self-defense don’t apply to certain people. Do you know who those people are? Government officials.

That’s the proof that the endgame is a government monopoly on force.

There are only a few things that can result from such a fate – and none of them good:


  • Every genocide the world has known since the invention of firearms could only have happened after government grabbed all the guns;
  • citizens being at the mercy of government for their very lives and safety;
  • government having the ability to pretty much do as it wishes without fear of rebellion.



Whether you look at the United Kingdom or Australia and see the rising rates of violent crime, or whether you look at Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China and the hundreds of millions of innocent people slain, there is simply no upside to confiscating firearms – unless, of course, you are part of the elite government crowd that benefits from fear, terror and death.

Read more at De facto gun control