“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“We don’t want to take law-abiding people’s guns away from them. We don’t want to take away that shotgun Grandpa left you when he passed away.” “There is no proposal on the table to take your legal guns away. All we want to do is protect the innocent.”
By now you’ve heard it all. “Common sense gun control.” “Mandatory background checks just make sense.” And on and on and on. Up until the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Second Amendment was not only a sacred right of the American people, but a cornerstone of our founding charter. Since that time, the push to vilify inanimate objects and question the humanity of anyone who would want to keep or bear arms of any type, but particularly those which might greatly enhance their ability to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property, such as semi-automatic pistols and rifles, has been never ending.
Until the very recent times, “confiscation” wasn’t put out there, because the first thing people think of when they hear that word is ‘mass’ confiscation, as in the authorities sweeping your neighborhood and gathering up every firearm in sight. But the agenda-driven socio-political- media types have been emboldened by the spate of multiple-fatality shootings over the last few years. And now….it’s out there.
This piece by Kevin Johnson of USA Today is typical of how the neo-fascist, bleeding heart enterprise works it’s magic. The perpetrators of these mass shootings have been, besides mass-media-influenced-sociopaths, well, just plain nut jobs. The fact that alternative media and a few brave politicians have managed to shift the focus a bit to the mental illness problem has, rather than taken the spotlight off “guns”, only provided another avenue for the gun-grabbers.
So what’s the buzz going to be now? From the article:
“More than a third of top police officials either believe they have no legal authority or did not know whether they could seize firearms from people who have been determined by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others, according to a recent national survey of local law enforcement authorities.”
“Hey, guys, did you know you have the authority to take people’s guns away. You didn’t know you could seize firearms? Folks, we have a problem. We all agree that the mental cases shouldn’t have guns, but the police don’t understand their responsibilities!”
See how this works? And the article continues:
“Of those officials who believed they had such authority, more than half said they rarely or never used it in the past year, according to the survey of 266 agencies representing 42 states conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum, a D.C.-based law enforcement advocacy group. Moreover, 60% of respondents said their agencies had no program or protocol for carrying out firearm confiscations.“
No protocol for firearm confiscations? Horrors! This is 2015! How can this be?!!!
See how this is done folks? Not only have we segued from a mental health “epidemic” (if there really is such a thing) into “the local police forces just don’t even know what their job is”, we have also slipped the formerly forbidden term into the lexicon – confiscation. Oh, and in case you didn’t notice, it’s “confiscations.” Plural.
Why does it have to be plural and why do there have to be ‘programs’ and ‘protocols’? Because if it was just a matter of a judge ordering an individual to be detained or monitored, taking that person’s gun away from him ought to be a pretty routine thing, wouldn’t you think? Do you see suspects doing the perp walk into the pokey or the psych ward with their 9mm strapped to their leg? No. And further, if a judge were to, in fact, rule that a person was a danger “to himself or others”, do you think the judge would say “Okay, you’re a danger. Now go on home and if you have any weapons, be sure not to use them on yourself, or anybody else.”?? Um, doesn’t sound kosher, does it? How could a person harm himself or others if he is in the hoosegow or the looney bin and can’t reach for his trusty .45? And if he is not in custody, wouldn’t it stand to reason that he has been deemed no longer a danger?
But see that scenario doesn’t envision a judge ordering someone to be locked up and then the police automatically having a “protocol” or “program” in place to go to that person’s residence and seize any firearms they might discover, does it? Neither does it allow for the authorities to seize firearms from people or their homes who have had restraining orders issued against them (they’re a ‘danger’ to somebody, right?). And if you thought about it a while you could come up with a dozen or two more situations where this “confiscation” thing could really take off if only the police were encouraged to ….do the right thing, don’t ya know ?
So that’s the next “conversation” that the Ruling Class will insist has to be had. There are no “protocols” or “programs” in place to confiscate firearms (which every right thinking person, from Hillary Clinton to Charles “C.W.” Cooke, now agrees we have to do because people, especially men, are so abusive and crazy and stuff.)
Please also note that as we referenced above, the conversation is not going to be just about disarming someone who roams the streets. It’s going to be about confiscating firearms. That means if the subject’s roomie has a weapon, it’s going to be incumbent to have a protocol in place to go to the abode and confiscate the roomie’s weapon because the subject, if indeed a danger, might be let loose by a stupid judge, or a stupid sheriff, or a perfectly intelligent immigration officer who was ordered to do so by a stupid President of the United States, and go home and grab the roomie’s gun and do a dirty deed. Stuff happens. (as Jeb! said recently).
OH, yes, and because it’s the local police and the local sheriff and the individual, knuckledragging states that don’t have “programs and protocols” in place, it would make really good sense to have some “national programs” and “national protocols” in place, wouldn’t it? Sure it would! Don’t be unreasonable, now that we’ve come so far!!!
Again, you could come up with a hundred more scenarios where the authorities, in their zeal to ‘do the right thing’ and keep firearms from anywhere a mental case might ever come within a hundred miles of, could become really top-notch confiscators. The point is the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. In all likelihood, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was that step, but certainly the new push to make “confiscation” roll easily off the tongue, with no bitter aftertaste, is a giant stride.
Thanks, Kevin Johnson! Thanks, USA Today! Peter King, R-NY and Joe Manchin, D-WV will bipartisanly get right on it, with the blessing of Her Hillaryness and Charles “C.W.” Cooke.
p.s. Even Krauthammer’s now saying it, here.