Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About Robert McReynolds
Robert McReynolds is an analyst and correspondent for NewMediaJournal.us. He works as a government contractor at Ft. Belvoir, VA as an intelligence analyst. I spent five years in the Navy and was stationed at NSA and on board the USS Bulkeley (DDG-84). I am currently completing a Masters degree in International Relations at the Catholic University of America.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
The New America
Robert McReynolds
January 22, 2013
It has been a few months since I put words in this space. The last time I corresponded with you I was explaining the duties we all had to ensure that the havoc unleashed on us in the past four years would not be allowed to continue in the next four years. Despite best efforts, those of us who love liberty failed to ensure that it remain intact for future generations. But I do not want to bore you with why, how, and who; all of that was done in the immediate aftermath of last November's election.

Now we must prepare our body and souls for the New America. First on the chopping block are the rights of citizens to hold guns.

This past week the President, on the recommendations of a committee chaired by Vice President Joe Biden, implemented a series of executive orders that would attempt to limit the ability of individuals to possess certain types of weapons and magazines of a certain capacity. In the build-up to this announcement many gun owners were in a fever pitch that President Obama would come right out and argue for confiscation of certain weapons and lay the ground work for the eventual confiscation of all weapons. But he appears to be taking a much different path on his way to confiscation.

One of the provisions announced in the executive orders speech was the implementation of a program for doctors to begin asking patients about guns being in their homes. This may seem trivial when worked up into a lather about outright confiscation, but it is important to keep in mind that the Left does things of this magnitude incrementally. The impetus behind having doctors asking patients about guns is to build a "reasonable" case about their mental faculties. You must understand that the other half of the outcry post Newtown, CT was doing something about people with mental disabilities getting their hands on guns. And that outcry was bipartisan.

Now comes the task of conditioning the general population's minds to think that being libertarian or conservative or even Republican is a sign of mental illness. Crazy? Well just keep reading.

First, do Democrats want to confiscate the right of the individual to have guns? Well in the time between the Newtown, CT shootings and President Obama's announcements there were plenty of Democrats who came out and said just that, confiscate them. Iowa state Representative Dan Muhlbauer called for the confiscation and banning of semi-automatic rifles. New York governor Andrew Cuomo expressed doubts that "no one needs ten bullets to kill a dear". But in the end all we got from the President was doctor checks and ten round magazines. You see, you got all worked up over nothing. You must be crazy to think that Democrats would actually want to take away guns from private citizens.

Second, is there a push to paint libertarians and conservatives as mentally ill? Well for at least six years I am sure that you have heard the phrase "the stupid party"? That is not in reference to the Democrat Party, although arguments could be made. No that is a pop-culture/media culture term reserved for the Republican Party. But being stupid just does not seem to go far enough to justify confiscating guns. In the first few months of the Obama administration the Department of Homeland Security warned that military vets returning to the country could be threats under the right circumstances. And now there is a little story from the Washington Times about a terrorism think tank at West Point that comes right out and says all libertarian/conservative thinking people should be -- mind you not could be -- considered threats to domestic tranquility.

The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has put out a 148 page research document about the "far right" and why it has warmed up to violent acts recently. The report equates the "far right" to racist groups -- typical of course -- and also describes them as the "modern anti-federalist movement". It says that these groups "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical", and that they (the "far right") "support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self-government". You see, now if you believe that you are the best person to determine how to arrange your personal and family affairs, you are potentially displaying terrorist or violent tendencies.

These are the dots doctors will soon be asked to connect for the federal government so that they can send the ATF to your house and confiscate your weapons. Under this type of an environment I would suggest that we all demonstrate "civil activism" and not cooperate with doctors who ask if you have a gun in the house. Welcome to the New America folks.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server