No matter how much politicians pretend to be offended by “assault rifles,” one fact remains undeniable: they really aren’t that dangerous to the regime. Frankly, the moment we allowed “them” to have a monopoly on rocket launchers and automatic weapons, we more or less gave up the real reason for the Second Amendment.
Just to be clear, I’m sure that many politicians would be happy if we were already disarmed. They would like our SWAT teams to have a freer hand. And I think they would like it if we feared private criminals (i.e. ones who don’t work for government) more, so that we bleated for more police to save us rather than taking our home protection into our own hands.
On the other hand, the presence of guns in the US is one of the excuses used to militarize our police. So that’s not such a big deal. Also, my understanding is that guns are substantially taxed by the Federal government. If that is significant, then Obama has been brilliantly boosting revenue for the Feds during his terms, and especially since Sandy Hook.
So this is my question: Why should they bother to take our guns? We simply are not a danger to them.
Right now we all have already trained ourselves to disarm before we travel by plane. And what do we find intensifying at these gun free zones? The TSA. Where they know we are disarmed and rushed they place us under the tormenting power of untrained goons to molest and radiate us. So what is ahead? I suspect the TSA will move into other travel points that are also gun free zones: train and bus stations.
No problem: we’ll all just use our cars. But that all depends on a level of prosperity that is threatened, as well as a regulatory burden on automobiles that can easily be ramped up. If cars get more expensive, then many of us will suddenly be under a control grid. All that is left then is for some pretext for rolling out TSA highway checkpoints and we are locked down.
I suppose some reader is thinking at that point our second amendment rights will protect us. Again, we’ve really already given them away. And the technology is also a little more uneven than it was in the late seventeen hundreds. They had guns at WACO. That was inconvenient for the Feds but it didn’t stop them in the end.
Let me propose a different view of how things work. When I read of peace negotiations in the ancient and the medieval world, I find lots of stuff about “exchanging hostages.” You give up some of your loved one to live with your enemy and they do the same. That way, any violation of the peace treaty will result in the destruction of your own family. This was meant to prevent hostility from breaking out. If you were settling a conflict in which you were the loser, then you would give up some family members to the Emperor who had conquered you, and he would not give you any such hold on his family.
That’s our situation in the United States. Already.
As much as I know and believe in what the Second Amendment is for, I also know that all my loved ones live in this country and are completely vulnerable to the Federal Government. It is one thing to consider taking up arms, as Patrick Henry did, when the British are sending their navy and German mercenaries to your home, when the question is whether or not to protect my family. It is another thing to consider it when they are already here, when the question is whether or not to put my family at risk. And they are already here. Sure I can arm myself. But I’ll give the SWAT team every weapon they ask of me, rather than bring death and destruction on my family.
See, they have everyone we love as hostages. Stop pretending otherwise.
And they don’t need our pea-shooters any time soon. They can wait.