I want to talk about the Second Amendment. Aside from my usual interests in persuasion and propaganda, the Second Amendment is something I care deeply about. Not necessarily because I am a gun nut, well I am, but I understand the connection between having a so-called right to life and possessing the ability to protect it. If protecting your life falls outside the scope of your responsibility, you are waiting for someone else to decide if you have the right to live or not. That may be an extreme way to explain it, but if you think about it for a moment, it makes sense. Nobody can respond to a situation you are facing faster than you can. If you are forced to wait for the police to respond, you are giving your attacker more time to accomplish what he set out to do. Period. Furthermore, it has been decided by SCOTUS on two separate occasions that police are not constitutionally obligated to put themselves in danger for anyone. If you think that you don’t need a gun because the police are there to protect you, think again.
The Second Amendment has become one of the most contentious issues in American society today. There are many reasons for this that range from seemingly logical arguments concerning public safety to emotional hysteria caused by an almost never-ending stream of mass shootings, constantly shoved in our faces in the evening news. On the flip side are the millions upon millions of peaceful gun owners who use their firearms for lawful purposes, which incidentally, include training in a citizen militia, who take the responsibility of gun ownership seriously. They are just as concerned about public safety as anyone. They just have a more realistic view of what public safety means. No one is safe in a gun-free zone in a world where people are demonstrating a willingness to gun down dozens of unarmed patrons who were forced to disarm themselves upon entering whatever establishment the mass shooting occurred in. The left can argue that more guns make us less safe all they want. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that unarmed people in the middle of a mass shooting are waiting for someone with a gun to get there, quickly. Someone mind you, who isn’t constitutionally obliged to die for anyone.
With all of this being said, we are living in a very interesting time. There is a global elite pushing their New World Order, Great Reset global restructuring plan hard and fast on a largely, unaware and gullible public. Their vision for us hardly recognizes the individual right to self-preservation let alone the right to own the means necessary to do so. Face it, if they get their way our entire constitution, along with the Second Amendment, is toast. In May 2024, all 194 member states of the World Health Organization will cast their final vote on giving this communist, global government entity, the power to supersede national sovereignty in the face of a global health crisis. Why do you think they keep referring to “gun violence” as a public health issue? This is a major threat that sadly, most people are simply unaware of. It isn’t being discussed by the major news media so there wouldn’t be a high level of awareness as most people watch the news for their information.
On the surface, things look pretty good for gun rights. SCOTUS’ NYSRPA v. BRUEN ruling has undone many unconstitutional gun laws, and there are others on the docket this term. One to watch is The United States V Rahimi. This revolves around the laws prohibiting people who are under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms. Most people think this law makes sense. After all, no one wants a domestic abuser to have the ability to harm someone. The part that is missing from the equation is the conviction of a crime or proof that the individual in question poses any real danger at all. This case will probably put red flag laws under the microscope as well. A red flag is a “beefed-up” protection order that allows authorities to disarm someone who has been deemed a threat to themselves or others. They vary from state to state but in most cases, anyone who views an individual’s behavior as threatening can file a red flag petition with the court. The individual in question is usually unaware and has no opportunity to defend himself until after his firearms have been taken. As Trump said, take the guns first, then go to court. That is a clear violation of due process. Merrick Garland specifically filed this case with the Supreme Court in the hopes that one, they would be forced to admit their Bruen decision was flawed, or two, put them on the spot for allowing domestic abusers to lawfully possess firearms. You know as well as I do that is what will happen should SCOTUS rule in favor of the Second Amendment. Here is the real question. If people are deemed to be so dangerous, why are they not serving a lifetime in prison? Why are Democrats, on the one hand, releasing violent criminals from prison, because capitalism, while at the same time, trying to punish decent citizens? Would it surprise you if I said capitalism again?
People have to look at this from a different perspective. Gun laws are meant to fail, and the constructed narratives around mass shootings are designed to ensure everyone sees the failure. This should show you the evil, genius nature of the left. They are conning both sides into taking positions that advance the gun control agenda. The left will blast the airways with demands for gun control and the right will argue for more solutions that focus on mental health, in the hopes that it will detract attention from the guns. Of course, guns aren’t the problem, it is the human heart that kills. Focusing on mental health, however, when it already is against the law to purchase a firearm if you have been LEGALLY ADJUCATED mentally defective, is a losing battle as well. For one, the right has no power over the processes of defining what constitutes mental illness. The left controls that field hands down, and as far as they are concerned, conservatives are mentally ill simply because we oppose change.
Conservatives are anxious about the upcoming SCOTUS battles because, realistically speaking, if they had any integrity and meant what they said in Bruen, all gun control would be deemed unconstitutional. Face it, there are no historical laws dating back to the founding requiring people to do background checks or ask permission to carry their guns. There is no historical precedent that allowed the government to deny somebody a constitutional guarantee without being afforded due process. Was there? Aside from the laws that disarmed Blacks, freed slaves, Catholics, and others that were deemed dangerous, no, there wasn’t. How will those facts apply to the upcoming Rahimi case? Could that be why they are working so hard to present the right as extremists? To lay the foundations for legally justified gun confiscation? To be clear I am speculating, not predicting. In any case, SCOTUS is already on shaky ground when it comes to backing its ruling. Several unconstitutional laws are being enforced across the country because SCOTUS is allegedly, allowing the process to work as it should. Shouldn’t freedom be the default position though? If the burden is on the government to prove its laws are in line with the historical and traditional laws concerning gun regulations, shouldn’t SCOTUS be stopping these laws from being enforced while the process works like it’s supposed to?
I can almost promise you that we will not end up with what we are expecting. What is happening is the process of compromise. SCOTUS’ Bruen decision is the far right extreme and the Democrats’ demands for all-out gun control are the far left extreme. Don’t get me wrong, I support complete and unfettered gun rights. I think if a person has proven themselves to be too dangerous to own a firearm, they don’t have a place among the civilized. If they want to commit murder they will either find a gun or do it without one. No law will stop them as long as they are walking free. That is one of the biggest problems with red flag laws. A person has been deemed so dangerous their firearms must be confiscated, yet, they are left to roam free to commit whatever violent act they wish with whatever they can get their hands on. Even if SCOTUS rules in favor of the Second Amendment in the Rahimi case, it will only infuriate the anti-gun left, empowering them to organize and push their agenda harder. States like Illinois and New York will continue to snub their noses at SCOTUS while they allow the process to go through the proper procedures. As it stands now, Illinois residents have until the end of the year to register their legally purchased “assault-style rifles” or face confiscation. Why does the state need them to be registered if they already know who to confiscate them from? That seems like a logical question.
Buckle up America, it is going to get interesting. The globalists will continue with their transformation agenda, and at some point, assuming SCOTUS’ intentions are sincere, our right to keep and bear arms will clash with the objectives of the U.N. and the World Economic Forum. Kind of brings into question the millions of military-aged men flooding our border, doesn’t it?
If you enjoyed this content please consider subscribing to my website and checking out my most recent books.
A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy, now available in paperback.
And Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion.
