A better explanation to David Drake

A fellow blogger, David Drake, made a comment to the post Finally Somebody Recognizes that People Make The Difference that upon further consideration deserves an expanded explication. My response to David was, while accurate, perhaps a little short. So, here goes:

David said

I will never understand why schools, grade K-12; are so frightened to have someone on the school property who is trained on how to handle guns & trained in self-defense; and who passes all the background checks. It has to be "PC". I can't think of any other reason. Am I missing something? Is there something I'm NOT following?

I responded that the anti gun movement consists of people who fear guns, and people who want to control you and me. Let's expand on these two classes of people.

The first group consist of what Col. Jeff Cooper called "hoplophobes," people who fear guns.  There are people who fear the loud noise, have never had guns around them, and fear what they do not understand.  Many of these people only know guns from what they see on television and the movies.  Such depictions are notoriously inaccurate and untrustworthy.  They have the notion that guns are more powerful than they actually are.  They believe that guns can fire faster, farther, and do more damage than is actually possible.  Sometimes it is possible to educate these people, but it only happens when they themselves seek such education.  People like this are most susceptible to anti gun messages.

There are others who believe the world shouldn't require us to go about armed.  I can't disagree with this position.  But reality tells a different story.  The truth is that violence happens where and when you least expect it.  The average criminal may not be the sharpest pencil in the box, but they know to wait until you are distracted, or not paying attention to situational awareness to pounce.  They also pick their targets where they are least likely to have armed opposition.  Until the lion lies down with the lamb, and swords are  beaten into plowshares, men (and women) with weapons will be needed.  At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, guns will be the most effective tools.

There are also people who do not feel they can, or should bear the burden of carrying a weapon.  People tell me they know themselves to be too volatile, that they fear they will become enraged and "snap."  Of course each person should make his own decisions for himself.  My own experience is that once I started carrying a gun, I began keeping my emotions in tighter check precisely because I was carrying potentially lethal force, and that force should only be used in the gravest extreme.

I am likely to encounter a number of such people on a daily basis.  Most are harmless, having a live and let live attitude.  Most do not think twice about guns from month to month unless something happens like the Parkland shooting..  They tsk tsk at the events, perhaps cry for the parents of the dead or wounded, and move on with their lives.  If somebody suggests shortly after an incident, they are on board with the "do something" crowd, which explains why we have 23,000 gun laws in the country.  None of these laws, of course, do anything other than forcing the law abiding to jump through extra hoops.  Criminals, are by definition, atr not law abiding, so these laws mean nothing to them.

One interesting law that exists in some jurisdictions is a law that requires registration of handguns.  No less a body than the Supreme Court has ruled  in U.S. vs Haynes, 1968 that criminals may not be forced to register their guns because of the Fifth Amendment right not to self incriminate. Yet theoretically, criminals are the very ones we should be catching with such laws. If we can't stop criminals, what's the point?

This brings us to the second group of anti gun people.  This group consists of politicians and their paid lobbying groups such as Every Town for Gun Safety and Mom's Demand Action. Every Town and the Demanding Moms are largely funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, with assists from billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer. They have few paid members, but they make a loud noise. On the other side, you have the NRA which is funded by the dues and donations from its 5 million members, the Gun Owners of America, with an additional 1,5 million members, and a host of state level groups like Grass Roots North Carolina. Gun rights groups do not have billionaire sugar daddies, so everything they do whether is is lobbying with the legislature, or manning booths at gun shows, is done by volunteers.  Politicians pay attention when someone volunteers to give up a day's pay, and travels at their own expense to speak with them about gun bills currently in the works.   That is why the NRA and similar groups are so powerful.

The real danger however comes from politicians.  A lot of politicians have an exaggerated sense of their own importance and have a huge urge to tell others what to do.  Writer Stella Morabito has coined the term "self-supremacy" which seems to fit fairly well. These people believe themselves to be part of an elite club of people who know what is wrong with the world and how to fix it. If they have to ram their prescriptions down our throats, they are going to do it.  See Obamacare.

 People with guns potentially stand in their way. That is why the Democrat party has become the anti gun party. In order to impose its socialist agenda it needs to have first eliminated the potential for an armed revolt against its machinations. They aren't worried about criminals with guns, because criminals do not act in concert with other criminals to over throw their oppressors.  Instead, they figure out how to get around their oppressors.  Often, this involves bribes, "plumba o plata," take the money or the lead.  But at its heart socialism is just a criminal organization whose purpose is to enrich those at the top by stealing from those below, and wrapped in a pretty facade so no one notices.

The founding fathers had studied the Bible, law, and history.  They were keenly aware of other forms of government and how they failed.  They had tried living under a confederation of the sovereign states, but that system was too weak.  After the Constitutional Convention, there was considerable debate among the Federalists and the Anitfederalists.  In the end, the Federalists won the day by promising a Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights became the first 10 Amendments to the new Constitution.  The Second Amendment was designed to keep us safe from both foreign invaders and from domestic tyrants.  This explains the socialists hatred of the Second Amendment, because they fear that it may be used against them.  When a judge enjoins an statutory or Constitutional exercise of the President's power, it looks all nice and legal like.  But in fact it directly contravenes the law.  In this way they hope to "sneak" up on the American people when they are not looking.  When they the deep state refuses to apply the laws to one party while throwing the book at the other, that contravenes the law.  The Second Amendment is a last resort, a doomsday provision, if all else fails to preserve our rights, our life, liberty, and property under the law.

But the Second Amendment can only work if we routinely flex it and exercise it.  We the people should be armed with the same armaments as the police and military.  The balance of fire power should be on the peoples side.  The other thing we need to do is remain vigilant.

Update:

 In a related post, Alan Korwin has an article at Townhall.com entitled Background Checks Are...Wrong. Korwin:

If you’re terrified of guns, or if you want all power to collect and reside in the hands of “the authorities,” then background checks are not the wrong thing. Background checks are a tool for control over the population. But they don’t control crime. They don’t even address crime. Democrats know this, or should.

These checks are something the organizers of this free country could not even imagine, much less sanction. Your acquisition of power (firearms) is supposed to stand totally apart from government reach. But that’s philosophical, too deep for many modern citizens. It’s hopelessly arcane for typical public school or even recent college grads.

Korwin is often brutally honest. But the time has past for saving hurt feelings. We must be brutally honest to wake people up to the danger.