Many of my gun control advocate friends and family on both the Left and Right side of the political spectrum have joined the crowd in advocating for further gun control in response to the recent mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso. However, something they often fail to realize is that increased gun control, especially red flag gun laws, do absolutely nothing to protect civilians against needless mass shootings and gives the most dangerous and violent government the world has ever seen a license to penalize law-abiding gun owners, something the People of North Columbia in my urban fantasy Lord of Columbia Series would oppose wholeheartedly.
Let’s take a look as to why this is the case, as Dr. Ron Paul stated on his YouTube Channel, the Ron Paul Liberty Report, why red flag laws pose a danger to the American people as well as break the Second Amendment.
Feel free to click through this link and watch Dr. Paul’s five-minute video while I summarize his key points below. Paul makes quite an argument that such red flag laws should not be put on the American people to reduce yet another civil liberty (thanks a lot (un)Patriot Act) but the only people red flag laws should be implemented on are federal agents and their pawns who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people since 9/11 and displaced millions more, leading to mass migration and an immigration crisis in some European nations.
Donald Trump’s Anti-Constitutional Views
Paul states such laws give the government a license to take away gun ownership from any individual without due process, something President Donald Trump, who I’ve always considered to be a neocon in disguise, also agreed when in a conversation with Dianne Feinstein. “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump says.
Add to Trump’s plea to crackdown on internet free speech, it shows that the flag-hugging President cares little for the Constitution that he swore during his inauguration ceremony that he would uphold and defend. Instead, Trump has proposed laws that attack free speech (First Amendment), gun rights (Second Amendment), search and seizure (Fourth Amendment), protection of life, liberty, and property (Fifth Amendment) and due process (Sixth Amendment).
That tells me that Trump is certainly no ally of the US Constitution, but let’s take a look at what Dr. Paul says. Paul states early that even supporters of red flag measures admit that such laws wouldn’t have prevented the mass shootings in Ohio and Texas, but stress that governments must “do something,” even if it makes it difficult for the average, law-abiding American to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
What Are They Calling For?
It’s fact that one of the shooters had a history of anti-immigration views while the Dayton shooter supposedly held extremist views from the Leftist side of the equation, as reported on Free Domain Radio’s Stefan Molyneux, those looking to government for the answer stress an importance of internet surveillance over anyone suspected of holding views deemed to be extremist.
There are talks that computer programs are being made as we speak to monitor social media and identify those who hold views that are considered by government to be extreme that might motivate them to commit violence over others. In Congress, there are calls for legislation to prevent those from committing domestic terrorism.
While this might sound okay on the surface as most proposals (like the Patriot Act), Dr. Paul stresses the danger this will bring if such laws are passed.
It’s a step toward criminalizing people for holding certain political views since remember, the government is going to be in charge of telling us what is and isn’t considered extremist even if those holding such views aren’t posting anything sounding extreme. Imagine police storming into your home and arresting you simply because you posted something on Facebook or Twitter that doesn’t conform to the government status-quo of say, opposing America’s perpetual welfare-warfare state.
Patriot Act All Over Again?
The current use of criminalizing right-wing extremism among those in Congress is reminiscent to the use of what Paul calls “Islamo-facsism” to justify the post 9/11 infringements on civil liberties. Which is why, as Paul states it’s “distressing to see progressives (what the mainstream refers to as liberals) and Muslim advocacy groups pushing for new federal authority to crackdown on domestic terrorism. It is ironic that progressives are supporting new laws against domestic terrorism while simultaneously protesting FBI targeting of Black Lives Matter activists as domestic terrorists.”
Which by the way, I’ll be writing an article shortly regarding America’s police problem in regard to stop and frisk as well as racial profiling used by the police among other subjects.
Paul stresses, as I do as well, that it’s not to say there aren’t those holding extremist views out there threatening our liberty and safety, but they are the “Republicans and Democrats located in Washington DC.
Paul couldn’t be more right, as the best examples of violence and extremism exist are our pro-war propagandists like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, among others, who routinely lie to the American people to garner support for regime-change wars.
“When I was the CIA Director, we lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.” -Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
Pompeo laughed after making such a statement at Texas A&M University, followed by laughter from the audience.
“I want to make the case for the secrecy of government and conduct when it comes to national security affairs and possibly for deception where that’s appropriate. You know Winston Churchill said during World War II that in wartime, truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.” -National Security Advisor, John Bolton.
“Do you really believe that?” Judge Andrew Napolitano said.
“You would lie in order to preserve the truth?”
“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it.”
“Why does the government think that the rules of society doesn’t apply to them?” Napolitano said.
“Because they are not dealing in the same civil society we live in under the Constitution. They are dealing in an anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply,” Bolton said.
“But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution mandates certain openness and certain fairness. You’re willing to do away with that in order to achieve a temporary military goal.”
“I don’t make any apology for it,” Bolton said.
Divide, Conquer, Fearmonger, Hatred
It definitely goes to show us a few confirmations. One is that the demagogues in Washington are willing to do anything that it takes to protect the world’s most dangerous police force in the world. What’s worse? It’s that the People of the United States are willing to demand such actions as politicians and the media continually utilize the fearmongering to spread hatred to protect and expand America’s welfare-warfare state.
Paul uses illegal migrants as an example, where Trump and the conservatives continually fail to distinguish between those migrating to America looking to take advantage of the welfare state and those seeking economic opportunity, as many do.
But when was the last time a high-profile Republican even attempted to distinguish between the two?
At the same time, those on the Left perpetually demonize the wealthy, failing to acknowledge those who earned their fortunes via the market and putting consumers before profits, stereotyping everyone in the wealthy class as robber barons who made their fortune by manipulating the political process.
Again, when was the last time a high-profile Democrat even attempted to distinguish between the two?
Politicians on both side of the aisle have long realized that the divide and conquer strategy has worked in an effort to gain power while their minions point the finger amongst one another. This side did it, or that side did it, which has and will continue to lead to violence against one another, and will continue to fuel mass shootings in America in which both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty.
And worst yet, the demagogues on both sides of the equation realize that such a strategy diverts attention from the common enemy of the American people: In the words of Ron Paul, “the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that makes this possible.”
Paul warns that as the fiat money system collapses, we will see an increase in violence, just as I had warned above. As a result, police state power will increase, and the only way to fight off the collapsing fiat market, growing police state, and erosion of civil liberties is to apply the idea of the Bill of Rights, which America’s founders demanded to be incorporated into the Constitution upon their realization regarding issues that caused great nations before it to collapse.
Sunny North Columbia
In Lord of Columbia, I continually draw attention to the pro-Bill of Rights, free markets, and sound monetary system of North Columbia.
So I asked myself what would the North Columbians think of increased gun control?
What I wrote above, all 1,500+ words, is the exact answer you would get if the North Columbians watched the increased violence, division, and hatred in America play out before their very eyes. North Columbia would never, even in the case of a mass shooting there, ever point out that the availability of guns was the problem.
Instead, the North Columbians would’ve looked to the massive welfare-warfare state, extremist ideologies plaguing multiple sides of the political spectrum fueled by the overlords and demagogues in government and the mass media, and of course, the lowering of the standard of living in the fiat monetary system, where wages and salaries have done nothing to keep up with the continual erosion of the dollar.
Thanks for reading.