Submitted just as received in the e-mail to me from Suarez International
*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*
Suarez: WHY DO I NEED A RIFLE?
It is tempting to only think in terms of what you need...or are likely to need. The liberal uses that argument to in hopes of eliminating certain weapons from the hands of civilians. "No one needs an AR-15" for example, is a chant not only of the liberal infesting this nation, but also of sporting oriented gun groups who cling to their polished blue bunny blasters while sneering at your parkerized black man-killer.
So, do you really need a rifle? Let's see if you think so when I am done.
America is a free nation (still that way in spite of so much effort devoted to changing that). A free nation is not based on the needs of its subjects, but rather on the wants of its citizens. An outside party, like a government let's say, establishing what you need is simply oppression by another name. They have no idea what you need...only of what they want to allow you to have. To recognize that free men can determine their own "wants" and then seek ways to fulfill those wants is to understand what a free capitalist nation is all about.
Freedom is not about owning guns, it is about being free to make money as your creativity and intelliugence allows. Economic freedom is protected and enhanced, however, by owning and carrying, and often using, guns.
When this nation was founded, that fact was well known to the founders. They had come from generations of people telling them what they "needed". So they set up a government to insure that all industrious men could pursue their wants....the "pursuit of happiness" as it were. And they set up a statement of rights to that effect. And knowing that whoever had the most physical power always makes the rules, they made certain that every man had a share in that power vis-à-vis the second point in that statement of rights, the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In National Treasure, Nicholas Cage correctly points out that "people don't talk like that anymore". Quite correct so -
"A skilled and well trained citizenry is necessary to keep a country free from oppression, so the right of the citizen to own and carry guns shall not be messed with"
Now what on earth would possibly affect the "Security of a Free State"? These guys had just defeated the greatest army on God's green earth at the time. Were they worried about the British coming back? Sure, to a degree, but what they were most worried about, and why they took such pains to write everything down, was of the new government becoming the oppressor in lieu of the British king. They wanted to make sure that the militia, which was every living human that could carry and fire a gun, was armed and ready to intervene should things get weird.
The second amendment is definitely not about John Kerry or Mit Romney dressing up in Cabela's finest red flannel duck hunter outfit and posing as "sportsmen" for the cameras. Every time I see such a spectacle it makes me want to vomit. The second amendment is about equipping an indigenous insurgency in the event of an oppressive political force. Its not about shooting ducks is it?
Now that is hardly anything the current "pro-gun" political associations, or sportsmen's groups will align themselves with, but it is a historical fact, and in such situations, we most certainly NEED as well as want all of the things we are told we do not need. One of these is the rifle.
Now, don't think like the typical legal CCW guy defending himself from some pimple-faced tee-aged meth-hed in search of your wallet. Rifles are not for this. Think of what these men might have needed, way back 200 years ago, to make sure their economic freedom - the only true security of a free people and a free state, was not messed with in any way shape or form.
Would they have needed pistols to keep "brigands" at bay? No.
Would they have needed shotguns to defend their cabins from native american home invaders? No. What they would have needed was the rifles of their day so they could use them to enforce their will through fire and smoke and lead balls.
The rifle is not about home defense or street protection. The rifle is about the projection of force. Its about forcing your adversaries, vis-a-vis violence and threath of death, to do what you want. The colonists didn't reason with the British, they forced them. Any group of organized men with rifles that has triumphed in a conflict, has done so by forcing the other side to comply by threat of force.
And understand this dear reader, from a historical context, freedom exists only because of the threat of violence backing it up. If no threat of violence exists, freedom is but an illusion.
Are you truly a free man? Only if you have two things. One is a rifle. Every American man worthy of the name needs a rifle. Preferably a rifle intended for fighting and not sports hunting, but in the end, any kind will do. Two is the skills to use it in a fight.
So I repeat the question to you. Are you a free man? If the answer is no, then go buy a rifle and then give us a call so we can fix the rest of the problem.
Gabe Suarez
