I want to talk about the Second Amendment. As noted in my previous 2A article, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a couple of cases involving semi-automatic rifle bans. These bans are obviously unconstitutional, as the government, state or federal, has zero authority to regulate any firearm at all. The bill of rights is a document that tells the government what it cannot do. It is not a list of rights and privileges granted by the government. No matter how hard they may try to make it seem that way. There has been some other good news in terms of court rulings, as the Third Circuit−−and this is a first−−has ruled that New Jersey’s ban on semi-automatic weapons and standard capacity magazines violates the constitution. Of course it does. Banning decent people from owning these weapons does not prevent people with ill intent from acquiring them. Somewhere along the line someone decided that rendering society helpless would make them safe, and that simply isn’t the case. Still, despite this seemingly positive direction gun rights are going, I am not convinced. Why?
Before I answer that question let’s discuss gun control in general, and why all gun laws are unconstitutional. Even bans on fully automatic weapons. As previously noted, gun laws do not stop criminals from acquiring guns. What they do is force the law-abiding citizen to prove their innocence, endure potential waiting periods, pay licensing fees, and wait for the government to decide if they are not a prohibited person. These are burdens the criminal simply does not wait for. Gun control tells the honest citizen that their ability to exercise an inalienable right is affected by the criminal who laughs at the laws we are forced to follow. The belief driving gun control is that less guns makes society safer. This is the wrong argument altogether as it has been shown that the law-abiding gun owner is probably among the most responsible group of people in the country. Of course, there are exceptions. The problem here is the parentification of government, and the enactment of laws that treat criminal behavior like a mental illness in need of treatment as opposed to punishment. Liberal judges, based on their twisted, Marxist view of the world, tend to release violent criminals back out on the street instead of keeping them where they belong. If a person has demonstrated themselves to be so dangerous they cannot be trusted with a firearm, should they be roaming free at all? The answer to that question is no, by the way.
Gun control is not only unconstitutional, but it is immoral. First of all, it is immoral to place obstacles in the way of people seeking to preserve their lives and livelihoods. As already noted, the violent criminal faces no such obstacles. A murderer doesn’t walk into a gun store and wait for a background check before proceeding to commit his act. A murderer is going to murder whether he has a gun or not. We all know the number one murder weapon in America isn’t the AR-15. More people are killed with hammers and other blunt weapons. Gun control is also immoral because it places the burden of defending your life on someone else. In other words, those advocating gun control are ignoring a simple, fundamental truth which no matter how hard they try, they will never be able to change. You, and you alone, are responsible for your life. When you advocate that decent people be rendered harmless and should wait on the police in the face of violent threats, you are saying it is the police’s job to die for you. It isn’t. The Supreme Court, in two separate cases mind you, ruled that the police are under no constitutional obligation to put themselves between you and harm’s way. Police show up to draw chalk lines, whether it is yours or the bad guys is dependent on the gun control policies of where you live, I suppose.
With that being said, let’s go back to the beginning. Why am I not convinced the Second Amendment is moving in the right direction? It is the timing of it all, for one. Midterms are rapidly approaching and the Republicans are facing a literal “shellacking,” as Obama would say, because people are tired of their broken promises and war mongering. Congressional Republicans, with the help of some Democrats, overwhelmingly voted for the recent NDAA which seeks to merge the United States’ and Israeli militaries. How in the world could they possibly think their constituents would support this? Trump also had from the beginning of this term to take meaningful action on the 2A and did nothing until realizing the stark reality that he is rapidly losing support. I have never believed that Trump is a pro-gun conservative in the sense that some of us would describe. I am afraid, in the event of a Democrat victory, he may be likely to rapidly shift more to the left because he no longer has to appease the Republican voter, at all. That is just speculation, however. I suppose it is possible that before the end of this term he gets rid of the NFA and all other forms of federal gun control. Yeah right.
We are also facing rumors of a potential energy crisis, the likes of which we cannot even fathom. The United States has depleted its strategic petroleum reserves, and the price of oil is expected to skyrocket. There is also an impending fertilizer shortage cause by the war in Iran and Strait of Hormuz situation. This is just speculation; however, we all know the government never lets a good crisis go to waste. In fact, some would argue that a crisis like the one we are facing is deliberately orchestrated so the population would accept the pre-determined solution. As far as the war in Iran is concerned, many are speculating it is driven by the global digital ID agenda, along with the deliberate destruction of our energy supply and the U.S. dollar, with the end goal of creating a digital, trackable currency that can be turned on and off at the will of the government, so that we will own nothing and be happy. What will the Second Amendment mean at that point? What difference will it make if the court finds semi-auto bans to be unconstitutional if they can turn off your money?
Finally, there is the issue of the recently released Chinese election meddling documents. While those are little more than speculative in their reasoning, there is the suggestion that the Chinese have been engaged in gun proliferation activity in the United States. Why? Well, let’s discuss what Bill Cooper said in Behold a Pale Horse. In a chapter entitled The Shadow Government, he suggests the government would allow the proliferation of firearms to enrage the anti-gun crowd. In other words, it is theoretically possible that the loosening of gun regulations is being coordinated with the potential crisis so that gun control becomes a permanent solution. This would be akin to Yuri Bezmenov describing the normalization phase of ideological subversion, where they stomp the proverbial boot on all our necks.
Admittedly, this is pure speculation, and I am not predicting in any way what may or may not happen. However, everyone that believes in the Second Amendment knows full well that the attempts to eliminate it will never stop. We also know that the government will take advantage of any crisis they can to further their power and restrict our freedom. While the horizon looks like it holds good potential for the Second Amendment, I would hold onto some robust skepticism and brace for the possibility that it may not go the way we think. If it does, then great! You have lost nothing. If it doesn’t, we could lose everything as the 2A is what ties it all together.
Let me know what you think!
