– J.D. Longstreet
Staring down at me from a photograph atop the computer monitor directly in front of me is the determined visage of John Singleton Mosby. His Confederate officer’s uniform is resplendent. The brass is sparkling, the leather is polished, and his black knee boots are spit-shined to a high gloss. His left hand is resting on the hilt of his cavalry saber. Mosby’s left foot is slightly forward giving the optical impression that he is leaning forward ready to do battle. And he was.
John Singleton Mosby is probably best known as “The Gray Ghost,” the leader of what would today be a detachment of special forces/special ops troops for the Confederate Army or, when under orders from General Robert E. Lee, the Army of Northern Virginia.
Nobody wanted to tangle with Mosby. He was a pain in the butt to the officers over him and even during times of relative calm. In battle, he was rabid. If he had any fear it was never apparent. His ability to stay a step or two ahead of the enemy was a testament to his reasoning ability and his strategic and tactical thinking.
As a lad, growing up in the American south, surrounded by the poetry of “languidity” (owing to the hot, humid, climate before air conditioning) one had time to dream. And I did. When not in school, I was in the fields hunting with my dog and my shotgun or rifle, else I was hidden away in some quiet place with my nose pressed against the pages of a book.
I had two heroes: Alexander the Great and John Singleton Mosby—The Gray Ghost.
I think it was their self confidence that drew me to them. They did their own thinking, came to their own conclusions and acted on them in their own way and they didn’t give a damn what anyone else thought about it. Of course, that spoke of another quality they both possessed in abundance: courage.
Glancing up at Mosby’s stern visage today, I feel as if he is challenging me to pour everything I have into the fight to preserve the individual freedom of the American civilian to keep and bear arms.
I’m convinced that if Mosby were alive and healthy today he would be in the fight and he would give a hell of an accounting of himself in doing so.
See, Mosby did not take kindly to others, even his superiors, telling him what to do, or what he needed—or didn’t need. In fact he tended to respond rather aggressively toward those who did. THAT is how and why he was pushed out of the regular ranks and into what we call “guerrilla” warfare today.
And that brings me to the crux of this commentary today.
I’m having a “Mosby Moment.”
I’m having a “Mosby Moment.” I, along with a few million other Americans, have a whole slew of elitist Americans assuming a right they do not have. They have taken it upon themselves to tell me what I need and what I don’t need.
I am referring, of course to the ongoing harping from the political left about controlling my right as a legal gun owner in America to keep and bear arms.
Oh, they’ll deny they want to abolish the Second Amendment, but that is a a bald-faced lie. That is EXACTLY what they want to do and they are on the verge of an all out push to do just that … if we gun owners allow the nose of that camel under the tent.
Not one to buy into the malarkey of Moral Relativism, or as it is known today “political correctness,” I have a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong. And for me, anyone trying to tell me what I need and/or what I don’t need crosses the line. You have strayed into hostile territory and you will be met with resistance commensurate with that behind your effort—and then some.
One of the lessons I learned in the US Army as an artilleryman was that one should not necessarily celebrate when the enemy is found to be in range of your guns. Why? Because that means you are also in range of HIS guns! Victory usually means getting the first accurate rounds down range and then maintaining a continuous barrage until the enemy is destroyed or driven from the field.
That is, I feel, exactly where we are in these opening moments of the fight over gun control in America. Unfortunately, we allowed the enemy to fire the first rounds and they are pouring it on. (But—they apparently forgot the old saw about “range” noted above!)
Those of us in the New Media have been fighting what amounts to a “trip wire” or “speed bump” action while our main forces were preparing to engage.
Honestly, now that those main forces have engaged, I can’t say that I am impressed with what they have brought to the battle, at least so far.
Yes, this IS going to be a slog. The so-called gun grabbers are going to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at gun owners, they are going to play on the emotions of the American people any way they can. Plus, you can be sure another nut will go off and kill more people because he wants to be a part of the story, a part of the narrative, and go down in the history books along with preceding murdering nut cases. It is the way of sick minds.
At the beginning of this debate there was some small degree of hope—on my part—that there would be at least a slight degree of civility upheld in the admittedly heated debate. That went right out the window within hours and so far (at this writing) the low point has been a member of the TV media calling his very own program guest “stupid.” (A petition has been filed on the White House website asking the President to deport that particular foreign journalist who only works for an American cable news outlet.)
And it will get decidedly worse. There are recorded instances of fisticuffs on the floor of Congress as the result of long past heated debates—and we may yet see more such outbursts in the weeks and months ahead.
We should all be wary, however, of the maneuvering BEHIND the scenes THAT WE DO NOT SEE. That is where the gun grabber’s mischief will be most creative and most effective.
We can expect Presidential Executive Orders limiting our freedom to be issued out of the Oval Office with little fanfare. There have been hints of such EO’s dating back months, long before the Newtown Massacre. There were reports that such EO’s were already prepared and awaiting the “right time” for the President to sign them.
At least one Senator has declared her intent to introduce legislation to ban so-called “assault weapons” as soon as Congress convenes in January. It is well to note that the assault weapon ban did absolutely nothing to thwart gun violence while it was in effect the first time. Plus, you might find it interesting to note that the state of Connecticut, has its own assault weapon ban. It sure helped … a lot … didn’t it!?
Expect the United Nations Small Arms Treaty to be approved by the US Senate. That does not require any input or approval by the US House of Representatives. It will,undoubtedly be challenged before the US Supreme Court and depending upon the way the court rules, that UN treaty could effectively wipe out the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
(One should keep in mind that Obama will likely have the opportunity to appoint two new justices to the Supreme Court in the next four years. There is absolutely no reason to think those appointees will be fans of the Second Amendment!)
I fully expect the approach used by the gun grabbers will be incremental in nature—in the beginning. They will insist they only want “reasonable” gun control. You know, things like civilians ought not own such things as machine guns, the modern Gatling guns, rocket propelled grenades, surface-to-air missiles, things like that.
It’s a con game. What they really want is your guns—and they are definitely coming for them.
If you are a gun owner and you want to keep your gun(s) along with the RIGHT to keep your gun(s), then you MUST join the fight. You MUST raise your voice in protest. Simply put—IF you DON’T raise your voice in protest, you will lose the RIGHT to do THAT once the Second Amendment is out of the way.
“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”—Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”— Patrick Henry, speech of June 9, 1788