Guns & Ammo magazine reported in 1996 that when Bill Clinton took office in 1992 the government had resumed for the first time in 15 years the destruction by shredding of "obsolete" firearms including 110,000 .45-caliber pistols and 30,000 M-1 Garands.
Now it's 2009. Less than 60 days into the Obama Era, the Department of Defense issued a directive that banned the sale of military brass to ammunition re-manufacturers.
In spite of the fact that large portions of either directive were rescinded, we need to ask what did the two actions have in common?
By deliberately acting to avoid recovering costs via sale as surplus inventory to the public, both moves violated the federal government's fiduciary duty as a steward of the nation's resources, the duty to get as good a return as possible on surplus stuff already paid for with hard-earned taxpayer dollars. But in addition to that, in each of these two examples those in power in Washington proved willing and eager to abandon that fiduciary responsibility because of what they see as a more important goal.
What the Washington weasels actually favor -- and are willing to throw away millions in potential new government revenue to achieve -- is a government
monopoly on armed might.
They hate the idea of "common citizens" having access to effective firearms.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/42491607.htmlFW Note: There is only one reason that anyone wants to disarm someone else, and that is to exercise control over them in a manner that is usually not to the second party's benefit. No one who wants you disarmed and helpless, even for a "reasonable" purpose, is your friend or has your best interest at heart.
