Fundamental Transformation, Part 2:
The Disarming of America

By John D. Turner
20 Jan 2016

The San Bernardino shooting lies in the past, what next? What about the President’s assertion that we can end this sort of thing by enacting “common sense” gun legislation?

Nothing that has been enacted yet has worked, even in restrictive states such as California, or restrictive cities such as Chicago, where since the beginning of January, 190 people, mostly male and mostly black, have been shot. (Not all of these were criminal; some were citizens with concealed carry permits defending themselves in robbery attempts.) All total, during 2015, 2,986 people were shot in the city of Chicago.

Nothing has worked. What haven’t we tried?

There can be only one answer to this question in the liberal progressive mind; total and complete gun confiscation. All guns in the hands of private citizens must be eliminated. Only then can we be assured that this can never happen again.

To the liberal progressive, this is a no-brainer. The violence is caused by the easy availability of guns; by the “gun culture.” Stamp out guns, stamp out the “gun culture” and the violence goes away. We see parallels with what is referred to as the “rape culture.” Eliminate the “rape culture” and rape disappears. It is a simple matter of cause and effect.

And even if that doesn’t work; even if violence remains, at least it has been mitigated. Knives and clubs will still be around, but it is obviously much more difficult for a single person to commit mass murder with a knife or club. So even if violence remains, we are “safer” than we were with guns. At least so the theory goes.

I could point to mass murders that have occurred in Africa, where the perpetrators used not guns, but machetes. But of course, in most of those cases there were multiple machete wielders not just a single individual. And that was in Africa, not here in the “civilized” United States.

I could mention the fact that the handgun has been referred to as “the great equalizer,” because it enabled women, who, on average, are smaller and physically weaker than men, (political correctness be damned) to successfully stand up to and face down a male attacker without having to have an advanced degree in self-defense and/or a large amount of luck. Handguns have successfully been wielded by women of all sizes against male rapists, muggers, abusers, and malcontents of all stripes where hand-to-hand physical force would likely have failed. Thus, handguns have been a great boon to women. Good luck having that level of success with a blade or a cudgel.

But of course, none of that matters in the face of the greater ideological debate; particularly when the ones leading the charge are themselves exempt from any laws that would be passed, or have their own, armed bodyguards by virtue of their wealth or position. What is important is that you be disarmed, lest you pose any sort of threat to them.

So yes, much as I believe that the ultimate goal of the current Obamacare legislation is a single-payer, government run health care system (the President has said as much at various times, and Bernie Sanders is currently campaigning on that premise, among others), I also believe that the ultimate goal of the liberal progressive movement when it comes to guns is total and complete disarmament of the American citizen.

What else can “enough is enough” mean? A 20 day waiting period? A 30 day waiting period? More background checks? I doubt it, and it isn’t what those on the left have been advocating for years. It doesn’t fit in with the disdainful rhetoric about “gun culture” and “clinging to their guns and Bibles.” It isn’t what has been done in other countries, like Australia, that the left holds up as shining examples of where the United States needs to be on the gun issue in the future.

I don’t expect it will start there of course; we will build up to that gradually, but we will get there. It won’t happen right away, it will happen in drips and drabs, in fits and starts. It will be an ever escalating series of “common sense gun laws” enacted in the aftermath of terrorist acts presented as “mass shootings” and “work place violence.” A law here that restricts gun purchases, a law there that does the same.

Ban purchases for those on the “no-fly list”. Ban purchases of those on the “terrorist watch list.” Ban purchases for people who doctors say are “a danger to those around them.” Ban purchases for those the doctors say are “mentally unstable.” Ban purchases for those who have been prescribed “psychoactive drugs.”

Ban “nasty” looking guns, so-called “assault rifles,” such as the AR-15 and its many derivatives. Black may be beautiful, but when it comes to the color of rifles, not so much. If it looks “military” it must go; this despite the fact that the number of people killed by such weapons in the United States is vanishingly small. When it does happen however, it makes national news. So ban them all – that’s “common sense” progressive style - I don’t “need” one so neither should you.

Finally, saying that “we have tried everything we can think of and nothing has worked,” and in an effort to “protect our children from gun violence,” they will push for an absolute ban on all weapons and confiscation of all weapons in the hands of private citizens. This will ultimately be supported by a public that has been sufficiently prepped by the educational system and the media to believe that only right-wing crazies own guns, and enforced by a surveillance state created to “keep us safe.”

By the time we are finished with all this, the only people in the country with guns will be federal, state, and local police; and of course, criminals - both real criminals, and those who have been made criminals by not turning over their weapons. (Note: I did not mention the military; military installations are “gun free zones” except for military police. Individual military members, who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, must keep any personally owned firearms locked in the armory.)

Everything you do, say, or purchase over the Internet will be a matter of public record. All your transactions will be known. All your associations will be recorded. Computer algorithms will constantly scan the warehoused data looking for “patterns of behavior.” Your every move will be scrutinized. Big brother will know your whereabouts at every moment of the day using the GPS in your cell phone, in your car, and any other item of technology you may have.

Video cameras on roads, at intersections, in stores, gas stations, schools, your place of work, everywhere you go will record you and run facial recognition scans. Your license plates will be scanned every time you drive; initially by police patrolling the highways, eventually by sensors set up at the same locations as the video cameras you already see everywhere. You will eventually even be monitored in your home. After all, no effort is egregious enough if it prevents even one death from occurring, is it? It’s for your own safety, remember; and if you have nothing to hide, why should you care anyway?

Think you can safely stash that firearm you currently own? Perhaps; probably not though. Have you ever purchased “gun related” items? Why would you do that if you don’t have a firearm? Are you or have you ever been a member of the NRA? Had firearm insurance? Set up a gun trust? Attended a gun show? Subscribed to gun or hunting magazines? Purchased (or checked out at the library) any books on firearms? These are indicators that you may own a firearm, and “probable cause” for your premises to be searched.

So what do you do when the gendarmes come to your door demanding your weapons? Say “sorry – I used to own a firearm, but I sold it?” Who did you sell it to? Where is the receipt? You lost it? You weren’t required to keep it? You don’t have it? Well, that’s OK. We think you may be lying; guilty of “constructive intent” to circumvent the law.

In some countries, this would be justification for a bullet to the back of the head. Why take chances? And if it turns out you really were innocent, so what? Life is cheap – and they have the guns and you don’t. Here in the US, you would probably simply be arrested and held based on whatever new laws they had enacted to take care of this situation; all nice and neat and perfectly legal.

What about the second amendment, you ask? What about my right to keep and bear arms? Oh, that. Well, there was this Supreme Court case, and the justices decided, by a 5 to 4 margin (elections have consequences after all), that the second amendment referred to militias, not individual rights, overturning previous, wrong-headed Supreme Court rulings on this matter. And since there are no legal militias in the United States any longer, and since we passed a law outlawing “private” militias, you no longer have any right to keep and bear arms; too bad, so sad. But not to worry; we have a very nice FEMA camp waiting to place you in where you can be re-educated so that you are no longer a threat to society. Have a nice day.

Meanwhile, in the here and now, we have President Obama’s latest Executive Actions, enacted on 5 January 2015, and designed to end the scourge of mass shootings and gun violence roiling our nation. As he puts it “we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check.” This executive action is designed to put an end to that “loophole.”

Notice to all criminals who purchase their firearms from other criminals: you are now required to undergo a background check when purchasing your illegal firearm from your illegal source. There. We are so much safer now.

None of the items in the executive action would have prevented the San Bernardino shooting, or any of the other mass shootings in recent years.

But that isn’t the point, is it? The purpose of these actions is simple; to go on record as having “done something;” to make political points against the Republican-controlled congress (who are “in the pocket” of the “gun lobby” and won’t do anything to prevent future mass shootings like passing “common-sense” legislation); and to lay the groundwork for future laws, regulations, and executive orders designed ultimately to disarm law abiding Americans when it becomes apparent that “everything done so far has failed to work.”

That is why this was couched as an Executive Action vice Executive Order. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register. They instruct federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees, all part of the Executive Branch, to do something. Executive actions on the other hand, are not legally binding. They are more like a presidential wish list of things the chief executive would like to see happen. Doesn’t mean they won’t happen (he is the boss after all), but they do not carry the weight of legal authority.

Executive orders are also politically sensitive; executive actions not so much, although the media seems to have some trouble distinguishing between the two.

So you can look at President Obama’s recent actions in two ways; one is that he has taken action, even if that action may or may not result in actual changes in the way we do business. The other is that what he has done is mere political posturing; he has actually taken no action, since his executive actions do not have the force of law. Either way, nothing he has done, even if it were to be acted on 100%, would have changed what happened in San Bernardino, nor will it prevent the next mass shooting that, inevitably, will occur.

And there will be a next mass shooting; and a next, and a next, and a next. Even if they get their way and guns are somehow totally banned in the US, there will still be mass killings, some of which will be mass shootings. One thing about human beings; history has demonstrated that when people want to kill people, they will find a way. We seem to have a problem keeping people from crossing our borders at will. How then pray tell, can we prevent weapons from crossing those borders as well?

ISIS has declared war on us. Do you think a few gun laws will stop them – even a total ban on weapon ownership? All we will accomplish is ensuring that when the practitioner of the religion of peace shows up at your school, your shopping mall, your Christmas party with their now-illegal weapon, you will be singularly unable to defend yourself against them. You will die.

But I guess that is a small price to pay for our collective “safety.” After all, there are 350 million other Americans and illegal aliens here to continue on after you are gone, and the desires of the elites outweigh the needs of the masses.

Other Sources: