To the editor:
The U.S. epidemic of mass murder by gunfire continues unabated. Yes, there is far more we could be doing to prevent these pointless massacres, but what is needed cannot be legislated or enforced.
Before I go any further, let me remind you I am no fan of the NRA. Far from it. Indeed, I’m of the persuasion the “well regulated militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment is now embodied in our units of the National Guard. The supposition that the security of our nation is guaranteed by marginally trained civilians owning military-style ordnance with monstrously large magazine capacity is utterly absurd.
No civilian needs anything more than a good bolt action rifle, a pump shotgun or semiautomatic pistol, the latter being illegal when paired with a clip holding more than eight or nine rounds. Most of us have no problem with folks having those weapons, provided all sales are preceded with a thorough background check and at least a 48-hour waiting period.
Still, none of that really has much to do with my point. I say all that just to clarify my point of view and avoid confusion and any possible misperceptions.
Yes, we can be doing more to stop these atrocities, but I fear our possible reaction to them could be far deadlier than the shootings themselves. I suggest to you that even though one may question the sanity or motivations of the shooters, those forces and powers that incite them to violence are perhaps far more cold, calculating and logically evil than given credit.
Before any actions are taken by any governmental agency to curtail the violence, there are a few things we should consider.
First off, let’s be reminded of the position of the NRA and those like-minded in regards to access to firearms, legal or not. It’s often said the honest citizen would be helpless against armed criminals, the latter not caring if guns are illegal. There is a strange and perverted truth to that. It is true, but not in the way most people think it is.
If the Second Amendment was repealed this very day, it’s a given government and law enforcement agencies would be armed regardless.
In addition to the government and the criminals, there would be two other large groups of people who would still be armed if guns were outlawed right now. We know for certain that the rich would still have armed protection via private security agencies even if they were not armed personally.
The other group would be those among us who have up to now already stockpiled huge numbers of guns and ammunition out of fear of government tyranny or societal collapse. Many of these people possess huge armories either as individuals or groups. If denied ammunition, they would still have enough to last them several months if not several years.
The vast majority of those with the large caches are definitely neither liberal or brown skinned.
Now we must consider those people whose access to firearms and ammunition would be minimal at best. While we know that gangs have guns, their numbers do not represent a significant percentage of our population. The gangsters pay exhorbitant prices for guns and ammo and do not usually have great stockpiles of ammunition at hand.
If cut off from their suppliers, the gangs would be virtually defensless in a matter of weeks and would necessarilly fall back on knives and such. They would be threats only to those in their own neighborhoods.
Gun ownership also hasn’t exactly been popular for left-leaning groups and individuals for some time now, but that has been changing the last few years. Liberal gun clubs, socialist rifle assosciations as well as gun ownership by other progressive groups and individuals have drastically proliferated the last few years.
They are still dwarfed in numbers by the right-wing militias, but their numbers are growing nonetheless. Legal gun ownership as well as open-carry enthusiasm have both been much more embraced recently by more African-American groups and individuals, too. Still, their numbers and supplies are minimal compared to the armories retained by law enforcement, the wealthy and the right wing.
There might be other traditionally left-leaning demographics whom I am be leaving out, but I think I’ve made my point about what groups have fewer firearms and perhaps, for one reason or another, less access to guns and ammunition.
If sales of guns and ammunition were outlawed at this very moment, we pretty much know who the haves and have-nots will be when it comes to firearms. If one concedes to the NRA the point that the unarmed would be vulnerable and helpless to resist the armed, we can readilly see whose lives wouldn’t be worth living for one moment if the Second Amendment were repealed or indefinitely suspended.
I’ll get straight to the heart of the matter: Those groups and individuals already in posession of gargantuan stores of guns and ammunition represent only a bare minimal threat to any government bent on aboloshing or curtailing Second Amendment rights. I dare say, most of those people would capitulate without firing a shot if and when faced with their possible demise at the hands of well-trained and better-armed professional law enforcement and military personel.
At best, I figure only 10 percent of these self-proclaimed militia members would put up any kind of resistance. You pretty much have to figure no more than at most 10 percent of those who would really fight would survive or be at liberty after their first firefight. Each ensuing battle would leave even fewer resistors.
Doubtless, there will be a few former military types who could hold out much longer and remain a danger to anyone and everyone for a while, but even the most prepared, hardened and fortunate of these would be living on borrowed time. While these people are motivated by fears of a tyranical government, I suggest that those who sell them weapons and the political forces that allow and condone the sales have other things in mind.
Who knows what challenges or disasters our nation could face even in the immediate future? It’s possible the tarriff war with China could result in a cataclysmic economic downturn the likes of which has not been seen in generations. Our antiquated and fragile electrical grid could easily be knocked out with a cyber attack, an EMP device or massive solar flare.
While many government and military facilities are hardened and prepared for such a thing, not so much is true for the rest of us. The west coast could be hit by a massive earthquake that would have ripple effects the world over and above any seismic upheaval. I could go on and on about any number of natural or man-made disasters that are certainly plausible.
Regardless, one can be certain there would be some kind of national emergency declaration and martial law. For that matter, I wouldn’t put it past the Trump administration to concoct something or run amok with emergency authority over an event not necessarily as massive or dire as Trump would make it out to be.
That brings us back to all the guns and who has them. If Trump were to declare martial law, justified or not, does anyone really think he will be overly concerned about his supporters being armed to the teeth? I think not.
Is it likely Trump’s base would feel inclined to challenge its leader or the military during such a time? I think not.
During such an emergency, does anyone really think the military will go out of its way to protect anything or anyone not vital to national security or the continuation of government? I think not.
With more than 800 bases overseas and all the volatility in the world right now, does anyone really think the military even has the manpower to give more than just a little material support to aid local law enforcement in keeping order? I think not.
At best, it would only be each state’s National Guard helping the police. Does anyone think this would really suffice? I think not. So just who would it be that would assume such responsibilities, authorised or not? You guessed it. It would be predominantly the right-wing militias and so called “patriot patrols,” just as some have been doing lately at the Mexican border.
Just what do you think would happen to any conscientious and well-meaning citizen who questions their self-appointed authority? Does anyone really think these militias would act in a rational and even-handed manner with people they had opposed previously or who opposed them? I think not.
When one considers the mavericks among them who have committed or conspired to commit atrocities in the past and present day, does anyone really think these militias will even blink an eye over mass shootings of demonstrators, abortion clinic bombings and the like? I think not. It’s entirely possible they would even participate.
No. All those guns stockpiled to resist a tyranical government are not there for their stated purpose. What are they for? You guessed it. They are there for the soft targets. They exist to be used on the LGBTQs, feminazis, libtards and anyone else who doesn’t go along with their inflexible and monolithic fascist ideology.