EVEN WITH TRUMP AS PRESIDENT NATIONAL HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS FAR FROM A DONE DEAL
NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.
WHY DO MANY AMERICANS OBLIGE THOSE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?
Americans are fortunate Donald Trump won the election and will soon take the oath of Office. That assumes the Electors in the Electoral College don’t do the old switcheroo and elect someone else. And, make no mistake, there exist rogue elements within the Electoral College. They intend to cast their vote in a manner contrary to the will of the residents of their State. But, casting aside a nightmare scenario, we fully expect the President-elect, Donald Trump, to take the oath of Office as planned, on January 20, 2017.
Even so, national concealed handgun carry reciprocity is and will remain far from a done deal. Donald Trump cannot order national concealed handgun carry reciprocity by Presidential edict, and Democrats in Congress will fight to constrain Republican attempts to enact such legislation. There is much resistance to this both inside and outside the Nation’s Capitol Building and we must be prepared for a drawn-out fight. Expect the new Senate Minority Leader, Democrat, Charles Schumer, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat-Connecticut, outspoken ardent–in fact, virulent–critics of the Second Amendment, to lead the charge against national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. Recently, both of these Senators, well aware of the American public’s push to strengthen the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms–now that Hillary Clinton is politically dead and Donald Trump will soon occupy the White House–have blared out their intent to filibuster any Republican effort to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. The antigun movement has suffered an extraordinary setback and those of us who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deeply engraved in our Bill of Rights, must press our advantage.
But, we Americans who cherish our Bill of Rights and, especially, our sacred right to keep and bear arms, must overcome decades of resistance to gun ownership and possession. The seeds planted by the antigun groups have sprouted weeds throughout our Country. These weeds must be cut and their roots pulled out. There has been significant resistance to the very preservation of our sacred Second Amendment and the antigun forces will see national concealed handgun carry legislation as an unconscionable expansion of the right guaranteed to Americans under the Second Amendment, and not as a mere exemplification of our natural right to keep and bear arms. Resistance resides in the psyche of those individuals who resent the very idea of guns in the hands of civilian Americans; and such resistance that insinuates itself into the psyche of individuals is worse—far worse—to the preservation, let alone strengthening, of our Second Amendment, than any one piece of antigun legislation. We say this because psychological conditioning has, potentially, greater consequences and far more reaching and damaging impact on the preservation of our Second Amendment than any one piece of restrictive federal or State gun legislation.
Antigun legislation, on federal, State, or local level, is more a symptom, the effect of insidious psychological conditioning on the collective American psyche. But for the weakening of the American psyche and spirit, such legislation would never—could never— achieve a foothold in our laws, in our legal system. That it does so is illustrative of the power of propaganda and demonstrative of the ruthlessness and power of forces at work in our Nation that seek to destroy our sacred Second Amendment.
Already antigun groups are marshaling their forces in Congress. They are stiffening their resolve to fight and defeat any attempt to implement national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation.
How might antigun groups and powerful, wealthy, ruthless, collaborators, here and abroad, who fund and support those groups, effectively thwart our efforts? We get an inkling through a look at the past strategies utilized by antigun groups.
Antigun groups make substantial use of slogans. Slogans convey messages. Slogans allow for the creation of associations in the mind of the target audience. The public is familiar with two of these: “commonsense gun laws” and “gun laws we can live with.” Antigun groups use slogans to attract members to their cause.
Organizational names of antigun groups carry antigun messages too. Consider Michael Bloomberg’s group: “Everytown for Gun Safety.” How did the well-heeled Bloomberg come up with that name? Did he invent it or did an advertising firm, retained by Bloomberg, come up with that through brainstorming sessions and group study of the effectiveness of the name as a device to shepherd the masses to the antigun cause? If the latter, we wouldn’t be surprised.
Slogans are examples of memes. What is a ‘meme?’ A meme is a mental virus.
Antigun groups like “Everytown for Gun Safety,” and the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” inject memes insidiously into the public psyche through their tool, the mainstream media.
“Everytown for Gun Safety” and the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” are themselves examples of memes—of mental viruses. Antigun groups know the value of memes in shaping, molding, and manipulating public thought processes. They employ memes assiduously. It is part of their strategy, their plan for undermining our cherished Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Antigun groups like “Everytown for Gun Safety,” and “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” inject deadly memes into the public psyche, not unlike a heroin junkie who injects poison into his veins. The mainstream media is the syringe antigun groups employ to inject their venom, antigun memes, into the public’s psyche.
The word, ‘gun,’ invariably factors into the memes of antigun groups. They employ the word, ‘gun,’ constantly and, whenever they do, they use the word, ‘gun,’ as a pejorative, as an invective. This is no accident. Their attack on guns–and on the very word, ‘gun,’–is always carefully planned and calibrated, to leave no doubt in the mind of the target audience, the American public, that guns have–as they see it–no redeeming value. The public is expected to accept antigun group presumptions about guns at face value, without criticism, without scrutiny, no less so than a member of a cult is expected to accept, at face value, as self-evident true, cult dogma as spouted by the cult leader.
Memes, utilized by antigun groups, induce, in those susceptible to the messaging, bizarre and ludicrous thoughts about guns.
Antigun groups use memes to instill in the public psyche a phobic reaction toward guns. The antigun groups are very good at this. They have been at it for a long time. They have honed their skills well.
The messaging operates both overtly on the conscious mind and subliminally on the subconscious of those individuals—and there are many—susceptible to reception of the message. Antigun groups, through the mainstream media, suggest that guns are more than mere inanimate objects. They suggest that guns are sentient beings—evil sentient beings.
Antigun groups create the impression that the “the gun,” is a scourge on society—more a scourge on society than the lunatic, the psychopathic Islamic terrorist, or the common criminal, that wields “the gun” to harm others.
The mainstream media propagates and bolsters dangerous memes about guns. It does so endlessly, relentlessly, vigorously, tediously, boisterously, indefatigably, shamelessly.
The result: many Americans develop a morbid, unnatural, fear of guns. Those adults, susceptible to such messaging instill their pathological fear of guns in their children. Antigun groups intend to inculcate in the mind of each American, beginning in early childhood, an irrational fear and loathing toward “the gun.”
The unreasonable fear of guns has a name. It’s called hoplophobia.
The imbecilic notions antigun groups attribute to guns and the lunacy antigun groups project on the public about guns percolate and permeate throughout society. The antigun groups, through the mainstream media, thrust their lunacy on the public, creating hysteria in sensitive, susceptible individuals. Many individuals are immune. But many others are not. Not content to project their lunacy toward guns on adults, antigun groups shamelessly, unabashedly project that same lunacy onto impressionable children.
The lunacy pervades our public school systems. Were they successful, antigun groups wouldn’t need to fight to repeal the Second Amendment. The public, molded and shaped like clay from early childhood, would demand it.
How pervasive is this lunacy? Consider: in the 1950’s a child could bring a toy stainless steel cap gun to school and no one would raise an eyebrow—not parents, not school teachers, not school administrators—but not so today.
Today, a child who so much as points a finger, suggestive of a gun, at another student at school, is suspended. Is that not strange? Click here for one example. Is this an anomaly? Unfortunately, no. The instances are legion. An internet search picks up many examples.
School officials call their draconian measures zero-tolerance policy. But, zero-tolerance policy toward what: that we must fear our own shadow and instill such fear in our children too? Is not such draconian, bizarre action by school officials indicative of aberration in their own psyches rather than an indication of aberration in the psyches of school children? Yet, school officials find fault with the children, not themselves—removing them from school, suggesting, perhaps, these children undergo psychiatric counseling. Really?
Antigun groups promote the nonsense, the lunacy, perpetrated by public school systems. Antigun groups proclaim that a harsh response toward gun possession is necessary. They argue such response bespeaks precautions both public schools and society at large are obliged to take and are obligated to take for the good of society, for the good of the societal collective—applying the dubious ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism to the body politic.
But, why? What is their motivation? Antigun gun groups say that draconian measures are necessary because we “live in a different world, today;” “we live in a more dangerous world.” We do? How so?
Are we to conclude the threat of global thermonuclear war during the 1950s—over a half century ago—against an adversary like the Soviet Union and its allies, the Soviet Bloc Nations—infinitely more sophisticated and threatening than the Islamic radical savages we contend with today—bespoke a peaceful time, a tranquil era for Americans? Not so for those of us living during that period. And, we did not fear the gun then. Why should we fear the gun now? No need then; no more so now. The absurdity of antigun group assertions, when seen in this comparative light, is plain.
What Americans are doing in response to such visible threats that do exist, toward criminals and Islamic terrorists, is contrary to the expectations and wishes of the antigun groups. Americans are arming themselves with—horror of horrors—guns; and they are doing so in record numbers.
The self-arming of Americans is alarming to antigun groups. The self-arming of Americans isn’t the response antigun groups want; it isn’t the response antigun groups expect. But it is occurring.
Yet, if we take the antigun groups at their word—if the world is a dangerous place today—we would expect Americans—resilient and resourceful Americans—to take personal responsibility for their own well-being. True that was in the past. True that is now. True that will always be so long as our Bill of Rights remains sacred. Why should the response of many Americans to threats to personal safety—acquisition of a firearm—be so unexpected even if unnerving to antigun groups?
Perhaps antigun groups take too many of their cues from their international benefactors. Such people cannot appreciate the singular uniqueness of Americans’ Second Amendment. They cannot understand the import of notions of individual, personal responsibility and personal fortitude upon which our Bill of Rights is grounded.
Most Americans realize personal safety and well-being devolve upon themselves, not on any greater authority, and not on the police. The court cases, Hartzler vs. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) and Riss vs. New York, 22, N.Y.2d, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968), make this point clear—a point antigun groups acutely ignore, postulating, misleadingly, disingenuously, that the police do serve the residents of their respective communities and that is enough, that is sufficient to provide for the residents of the community all the protection the residents need. But is it?
Police departments do serve residents, yes. But, residents are served as a collective body. The police are required to provide for the welfare of the community as a whole. But, must they provide protection to individuals within a community, apart from offering protection to specific public officials? The answer is, “no.” They need not do so and, in fact, do not.
Americans understand that possessing firearms ensures their own individual safety and well-being as is each American’s right, and each American’s duty to self and family. The police are not required by law to provide that task even if particular departments had the money and the manpower to do so. Even, then, there would be good reason for the police not to do so, as case law makes clear. Hence, the duty to provide for one’s personal safety rests invariably, inevitably, on the individual. Our Second Amendment codifies that sacred, natural right.
A firearm—the gun—is the most effective means of ensuring one’s safety and well-being when one’s life is threatened. Still, the antigun groups attack our Second Amendment. They attack the sanctity of each American’s individual life. Their attack on the right of each individual American citizen to defend his or her life with the most effective means of doing so is facially inconsistent with our Bill of Rights. Their position is, rationally, altogether inexplicable, and, on moral grounds, indefensible and irreverent.
Their attack against the Second Amendment of our Constitution is no less an attack on our Nation State and no less an attack on our National Identity insofar as their position is an affront against the sanctity of our Constitution; for our Constitution is the foundation of our Nation and the clearest expression of our National Identity.
Yet, the concepts of ‘national identity’ and ‘nation State’ are anathema to powerful, ruthless internationalists—creatures that seek an end to the natural independence and sovereignty of our Nation State and of all nation states; an end to national heritage and history; an end to national identity; an end to each nation’s right to self-governance; an end to the right of each of us, as individuals, to be and remain individual.
One only need concentrate on the collective horror the EU experience and experiment has wrought on individual Nation States: the insidious attack on notions of National Identity and National Sovereignty—to realize what can yet befall us. The Nations of Europe fell for the lies of EU proponents. They thought they could maintain their political identities even as they ceded their economic authority. They were wrong. But, there is now a most welcome backlash.
We might learn from their example. Better it would be if we stay clear of the worst of entangling alliances as “free trade” agreements require, as they compel—as they move us inexorably closer to an EU style arrangement with other nations—leading inevitably to the destruction of our Nation State, our National Identity, our Constitution.
The mere existence of our Second Amendment operates as a visible threat to those invisible, insidious forces, lurking in the shadows. These denizens of hell seek no less than the abject surrender of our National Sovereignty. They seek no less than the subordination of our laws to those of foreign courts and foreign tribunals. They seek no less than the shredding of our unique Constitution.
The strengthening of our Second Amendment is something these powerful, ruthless interests cannot abide. They will use their tools and puppets—including the mainstream media, antigun groups, various members of Congress, and the ignorant, frightened, misguided sheep among us—to constrain any attempt to implement national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation.
Passing such legislation is a major step toward preserving our singular way of life as an independent sovereign Nation and preserving the two most sacred pillars upon which our Nation rests: one, that government operates at the behest of the American people, not the other way around; and, two, that the Bill of Rights codifies natural rights that forever secure in the American citizen, sacred rights existent in that American as an individual.
In our Country, the individual must never hear to be told that he must sacrifice his sacred right of self-defense to the seemingly greater need, the greater good, of an amorphous collective mass—that his right of personal self-defense through possession of a firearm manifests as a danger to the collective security of the masses and must, therefore, be curbed, restrained, denied.
We have our work cut out for us. The depth and breadth of that work will become clear as we post further articles on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity.
Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.