Skip to content

A Red Flag for Red Flags – Gun Control Is About Control

The Left is relentless in their quest for more power and control.  If they cannot get what they want one way, they will keep trying other ways until they finally succeed or are soundly defeated.  Although they speak frequently of democracy, they violate the basic concepts of democracy which say that once the will of the people is made known, it is the responsibility of all to accept that will until a sufficient number are persuaded to a different path.

The Left will only abide by a democratic decision if they agree with it.  Otherwise, they will use intimidation, coercion, violence, deception, manipulation, and a hundred other ways, not to persuade, but simply to wear down or terrorize a population into submission.

What is a Red Flag law?

Presently, there is a new “bipartisan” bill before congress that, among other things, would promote the adoption of “Red Flag” laws across the land.  For those still unaware, a Red Flag law allows almost anyone to accuse a gun owner of mental instability, suspected violent tendencies, affiliation with a violent organization, or any other characteristic that might conceivably lead them to use a gun against others.  Based on such a simple accusation, a sympathetic court can order the seizure of that individual’s guns without trial, and without prior notification.  The affected individual is left to a lengthy and expensive process to recover their property – essentially proving their innocence of malign thoughts or intentions.

 An Obsolete Constitution

The Left has long maintained that the US Constitution is obsolete and no longer applies.  They are now acting as though that were an established fact.  Red Flag laws violate several Constitutional amendments, including not only the fundamental right to keep and bear arms acknowledged in the Second Amendment, but also the Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the Sixth Amendment including the right to know what charges are being applied, to confront accusers, and to challenge evidence presented against them.

The excuse given is that the danger of misuse of weapons is so clear and present, and the consequences of such misuse so great, that we cannot afford such niceties as adherence to outmoded rules suggested in a document two hundred years out of date.

A government of wolves

The perspective of the Left is that the strong will always rule over the weak.  That is the natural order of things that has existed for thousands of years, and will not change any time soon.  Only the Left has the will to acquire and exercise power – to take what they want from the weak against any objection they might raise.  This is why one of the most successful propaganda pieces of Nazi Germany was called “Triumph of the Will”.

The sheep will always feed the wolves and will always be at their mercy.  A nation of laws is just a feeble attempt by the sheep to confine and control the wolves.  At some point, the wolves will cast off the ineffectual shackles of law and resume their rightful power.  This attitude is why the Left has always supported slavery, except when it was expedient to pretend otherwise.

The wolves need protection

Such is the justification of the Left for actions that would disempower those they see as their sheep.  They do not want the sheep to be able to fight back.  The Founders were right to ensure that the people would always have effective means to resist their predators.

They had an example of history where the peasantry was at the mercy of an aristocracy that had armored knights to enforce their will.  It all changed with the invention of the English longbow that could drive an arrow with enough force to penetrate armor.  With that the sheep could effectively fight back and force the wolves to retreat.

The introduction of the longbow was instrumental in curbing the power of kings and in the adoption of the Magna Carta in 1215. An armed populace has always been a difficult matter for those who would rule.  On one hand, people were needed who could defend the country, so widespread availability of arms was essential.  On the other hand, an armed populace could resist an unpopular government.  We see this tension today with the Left seeking to eliminate Second Amendment rights against the opposition of millions of legal gun owners. The wolves don’t want their prey able to defend themselves against predation.

What could they do?

A fundamental of military analysis is to look first at capabilities, both of one’s own, and especially of a potential enemy.  Intentions come second, as intentions must always be backed up by capabilities, otherwise they are meaningless.  Likewise, capabilities that exist are nearly always exploited by those who hold them.  Restraint is not a popular virtue among those who seek power over others.

The Left says that they have no intention of removing legal guns from peaceful owners.  They only want to take guns from the hands of those who might misuse them.  Their intent, they say, is to make our communities, our schools and houses of worship safer.  Let us then look at the capabilities that Red Flag laws enable.

Groups are composed of individuals

Just as a thought experiment, what if it were to be decided that anyone who was a member of a particular group should be considered a threat to public safety and should have their guns confiscated under Red Flag laws.

What if that group were composed of people who were labeled “domestic terrorists”.  After all, who in their right mind wants armed terrorists running loose in their community?  Those people are dangerous and should have all their weapons confiscated so they can’t harm us.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Now consider that most of us of a conservative persuasion have already been labeled “domestic terrorists” by our own government.  Remember the notices issued by the Department of Homeland Security?

Anyone who spoke out against CRT at a board of education meeting, anyone who attended a Trump rally, anyone who believes the Second Amendment isn’t limited to the weapons available in 1776, anyone who uses the words “freedom”, “patriot”, “Constitution”, “republican”,  “We the People”, and many others shares the label of terrorist.

The German government was able to craft laws that only applied to one segment of the population.  They used those laws effectively to disarm that segment.  Once disarmed, that segment was unable to resist persecution and even extermination efforts.

Does that seem any different from what the Left, with its “cancel culture” and conservative speech suppression, violent and sometimes lethal attacks on any who oppose them, has repeatedly and publicly wished to do to conservatives?  What use would they make of the capabilities offered by Red Flag laws?

On the threshold of tyranny

The proposed bill currently in the Senate, deceptively called “To Make Our Communities Safer”, would support widespread adoption and expanded enforcement of Red Flag laws.  It gives lip service to Constitutional rights of due process and seizure, but without discussion of what protections would be afforded.  It does not, in its 80 pages of text specify what criteria should be considered for confiscation, nor what should be done to restore the rights of anyone wrongly accused.

As in a military analysis, the capabilities created by widespread Red Flag laws are immense.  What limits would exist for those hostile to private ownership of weapons that would restrain them?  Why not restrict gun ownership to those loyal, patriotic Americans who believe that government knows best, that we are all in this together, and who only want their children to be safe in gun free zones?

Rationalizations and justifications

What would be so bad about taking guns from those violent right-wing, racist, white supremacist, homophobic, violent Christian, conservative Republican domestic terrorists?  Aren’t they all just waiting for the chance to walk down the street, armed with assault weapons, spewing bullets in all directions just like that terrorist kid in Kenosha?

The FBI could make examples of a few of those who might resist.  It would serve as an example to others for them to finally turn in their guns.  So what if a few people die resisting.  If you want to make an omelet, you have to break eggs.  So we break a few of their eggs – they deserve it, those violent terrorists all.  Look at what we did to those January 6 insurrectionists and imagine how much more we could do to those fanatic gun cultist clingers.

Speak now

First they came for the assault weapons, and I did not speak out—
     Because I did not own an assault weapon.

Then they came for the racists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a racist.

Then they came for the conservatives, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a conservative.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

With apologies to pastor Martin Niemoeller.

By David Robb

David Robb is a regular contributor to The Blue State Conservative and a practicing scientist who has been working in industry for over 50 years. One of his specialties is asking awkward questions. A large part of his work over the years has involved making complex scientific issues clear and understandable to non-specialists. Sometimes he even succeeds.

Enjoy HUGE savings at My Pillow with promo code BSC

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Blue State Conservative. The BSC is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented.

Notice: This article may contain commentary that reflects the author’s opinion.

Photo by Fibonacci Blue, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

What was the total number of people who signed the Declaration of Independence?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.



Use PROMO CODE BSC for discounts!