Controlling Our Guns: What the Government Doesn’t Want You To Know


Image Source:

One of the most talked about issues with our government (as it relates to the freedom of the general public) is the constant demand to take away the guns of the citizens.

Regardless of where you sit on the issue, the decision needs to be conducted in a democratic way. Yet, the government has not done so.

Through a series of strategic maneuvers, the government has taken much of the control over our guns, and they have done so without the general public blinking an eye.

Like in the wizard of OZ, the government cannot be held accountable unless the curtain is thrown back and the truth is revealed. This article attempts to do just that.

The government buys over a billion rounds of Ammunition for Homeland Security.

In 2013 the government bought a massive amount of ammunition for the Department of Homeland Security.

By a massive amount, I mean that they bought 1.6 billion rounds.

A strategic analysis by Forbes magazine concluded that the rounds would suffice for 100 years of military training.

So, if the government is using the ammunition for training purposes, then we should have seen a decrease in the spending as we are all stocked up. Yet, we have not.

Another analysis states that the ammunition will be enough to sustain a war on American soil for 20 years. As it relates to the general public, they bought enough ammunition to shoot every person in the US 5 times.

Add the arsenal of military grade weapons to the mix and you can see their true motive.

So how does this relate to gun control?

You may have noticed that there has been a shortage on bullets and that the prices for bullets has spiked. True, we have recovered a bit on the amount of bullets which retailers are able to stock, but the reality is that when 1.6 billion bullets are purchased that the impact to the industry will be catastrophic.

The government knew this and that is why they made the purchase.

It had nothing to do with saving money.

It had everything to do with driving up the cost of ammunition to keep the general public from being able to purchase large quantities (as there are no large quantities to be bought unless you spend a small fortune).

The government shuts down the main producer of lead in the US

It is a proven fact that when products are produced locally that they will be more abundant and for a cheaper price then if they are imported. Why then would the government shut down the main lead sheltering plant?

The government claims that the company was in violation of EPA laws. The EPA stated that the business made the decision to shut down instead of installing the pollution control technologies to reduce emissions. This is from the older Clean Air act.

It is interesting that the new act is coming to light again as more and more light is being shown on the gun control issue (but that is a whole argument in itself).

By shutting down the smelter plant, the government took away the only lead smelter in the United States. This means that NO ammunition can be made completely in the United States.

However, we do need to state that the EPA did give Doe Run a chance to remain open if they agreed to pay the $65 million to correct their violations and another $7 in civil penalties. Really? $72 million dollars to keep running plus operation costs.

By making ammunition into an imported product the government can regulate the supply

When the ammunition was taken out of the United States and turned into a product that relies upon importing and exporting, the control over our guns was lost.

Sure, we can have a gun, but if the bullets are regulated by international import and export laws as a “goods” and “product” rather than a violation upon the rights to bear arms, then where are we?

So while the feud upon gun legislation rages on, the government has taken measures into their own hands to limit the ammunition which can be brought into the country.

What are some of the impacts of the government’s strategies?

There are a few strategies which have set the stage for martial law or at minimum a very strong militaristic police force and reduced civilian freedoms. Consider:

If the government has 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition for Homeland, they are planning on using it at some point. As we have seen it would take 100 years to use it in standard training. Obviously, it is intended for a war scenario.

If the ammunition is kept supplied in small quantities then there is less risk of having a particular geographic location having power in the event of a military takeover.

If legislation passes requiring that all guns be registered, then that is just a beacon for quick rounding up of these guns in the event of martial law.

Do not believe that this could happen? Look at what occurred after Katrina, guns were seized.

Now, take into consideration a national disaster and ask whether or not you believe the local militaristic powers would not identify where the guns are located (per the registration) and seize them.

By controlling the import and export, the government can regulate the taxation on the ammunition. Where it may be feasible to buy a gun, it may quickly become a luxury to be able to own both a gun and the ammunition to fire from that gun.

Other Considerations

Where I am not stating one way or the other what will happen, it does appear that when you take the guns and ammunition away from the citizens of any country and turn the manufacturing of such ammunition into the responsibility of a foreign country, that you are handing over the power of that country to defend itself into the mercies of whatever country is providing you with guns.

This has been the fundamental drive of gun runners for years. Take the guns from one country and supply the enemy, and then sell the guns back to the other side at double the cost. Keep the demand high and the supply low so as to regulate and mandate the financial gain and control over arms.

Has the government become one?

You decide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *