Gun control and constitutional incompetence in the ranks

In the article Associationism: Replacing Islamic Terror with Right Wing Extremism, the groundwork explaining what we see taking shape in our nation was laid out. Slowly but ever so surely, the fear of Islamic terrorism has been replaced with the image of the gun-toting, patriotic American through a process called associationism. It is simple stimulus-response conditioning. People have been trained to fear terrorism by never ending exposure to trauma causing events ̶   the stimulus just changed from the Islamic terrorist to the American willing to stand up for his rights. Constant news stories depicting mass shooters as white nationalists or disgruntled right-wingers is all it took to create a state of mind where people are willing to surrender their liberty for security. Well, some people anyway.

New York has just created a law enforcement/intelligence unit dedicated to combating so called “right-wing extremism.” The unit is modeled after those that were, after the September 11 attacks, committed to rooting out radical jihadists. Due to a lawsuit filed against NYPD in 2013, all references to Islamic radicalism have been removed from law enforcement training manuals leaving a vacuum that needs to be filled. Naturally, they turned their sights towards those they know will not willingly comply with the unconstitutional gun laws they have recently passed. This is happening at the same time Virginia is promising sweeping gun control and even suggesting the National Guard could be used to enforce it. While the Virginia National Guard released an official statement urging all to remain calm, it wasn’t a refusal to obey unconstitutional orders. The author of the Bearing Arms article suggests that Major General Timothy P. Williams needs to stay neutral and not ruffle any feathers with the Governor right now. This writer disagrees, if they refuse to stand now and let their position be known due to political reasons, it is likely that they will tow the party line when the time comes to make a hard decision. The latest from Virginia is that a bill has been introduced to fire or reprimand all who refuse to enforce their unconstitutional mandates.

Many people believe that military members will refuse to follow unconstitutional orders, and that they will side with the people and the oaths they took to support and defend the constitution. While many will, the sad truth is that a sizable portion of them will not. They will do exactly as they are told. For example, consider the Twenty-Nine Palms Combat Survey. Administered in an unofficial capacity by Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham in 1994, the survey asked 300 Marines 46 different questions. One of which was the following ̶

The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

Out of three-hundred Marines a staggering 18.6 percent agreed, 7.6 percent strongly agreed and 12.0 had no opinion either way, meaning they could be easily swayed to simply follow orders. This equates to over twelve percent out of only three hundred. Granted, that is only thirty-three people but if the percentages hold true across the whole military then that is a potential two-hundred-twenty-thousand troops willing to confiscate firearms from civilians. This survey, as noted above, was administered in an unofficial capacity for the purpose of writing a thesis on service members lack of constitutional competence. Cunningham assured those questioning his motivations that he was only concerned about "the lack of knowledge among the soldiers about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans."

Consider the current climate in today’s military. Political correctness has run amuck, and many service members have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the public-school system. The numbers are surely much higher than they may have been in 1994 after being subject to the constant anti-gun message and non-stop shootings in the news. There is a growing ignorance about our constitution as many high school textbooks have taken it upon themselves to re-write the second amendment.  Also, consider the fact that the organization “Oath Keepers” was formed in response to National Guard units being ordered to confiscate firearms from civilians after Hurricane Katrina. There were more soldiers willingly following orders in that situation than not. On a more personal note, this author asked an Oklahoma National Guard member if he or his unit would comply with such orders. His response was chilling. He replied by saying his oath meant he had to follow the orders of the president no matter what, and that he would. That is indoctrination and easy susceptibility resulting from ignorance of our constitution.

As tensions rise and more people come together forming second amendment sanctuaries you can rest assured that they will be labeled as domestic terrorists. The federal government already considers people concerned about the loss of gun rights as potential threats to national security. When the laws are passed, and people refuse to comply, the excuse to label them a “potential threat to themselves or others” will be used to enforce extreme risk protection orders against them. This has been part of the plan all along ̶ trap us in a corner and force us to act. It is a perfect storm brewing and the objective is total disarmament. If the National Guard is called there will surely be dissention in the ranks, creating another crisis that will need to be solved.

Someone needs to remind Major General Timothy P. Williams about U.S. Code 18-242. It is a crime to deprive any person of the liberties protected by the United States constitution under the color of law.