Yesterday, in a Claire Wolfe blog post — the premise of which is how the administration is incrementally banning gun ownership without actually banning guns — I was criticized in comments for espousing “doom and gloom” for noting details of how the administration is incrementally banning gun ownership without actually banning guns.
I drafted a response, then spent the night deciding whether to post the comment. In the end, I thought better of turning Claire’s blog into a potential screaming match. But I still thought what I wrote needed saying.
With a little additional editing, here ’tis. Those who wish can talk about in comments. I choose not to participate further. Have fun.
You need to take up the doom&gloom issues with the folks doing it, not the ones pointing it out.
1. The feds did implement background checks.
2. The feds did expand the database.
3. The fedsdid mandate expanded state reporting to the NICS database.
4. The feds did start adding veterans to the NICS database without real adjudication, for alleged mental incompetence based on using assistance with bills.
5. The feds are now expanding the same VA-style reporting to SSI disability recipients.
6. The feds are now assembling a mortgage database. The stated purpose of forcing diversity on neighborhoods is bad enough. Given the way the aforementioned Social Security program has been expanded insanely beyond what it supposedly was for, I think the possibility that mortgage database applications will likewise expand is a reasonable guess.
(The PoA bit was just to make a point of how far this could theoretically be taken, but we are dealing with a federal government that is currently bragging about expanding government support (“welfare,” etc) to include 1 in 5 residents “incompetent” to support themselves.)
True, I’m guilty of hypothesizing an extrapolated scenario that’s only consistent with what the feds have been doing for a couple of decades. I suppose I could stick my fingers in my ears and chant, “La la la, the state doesn’t exist, I’m free;” and rip into folks who even mention the defunct constitution (which was never exactly perfect, but beat the heck out of anything else in the world at the time*).
Tell me which part of my hypothesis is inconsistent with the government’s actions (which, rainbows and unicorns aside, does exist even if it shouldn’t), or that any of the current batch of demublican megalomaniacal campaigners wouldn’t be happy to leave in place for their own agenda.
What the feds are currently doing violates their own supposed rules. They aren’t stopping. And I don’t see the general population rising up to stop what’s been going on for decades.
They came for the convicted felons, but I wasn’t a felon so I said nothing.
They came for the misdemeanor domestic violence offenders, but my wife hadn’t reported me for intimidating her by yelling so I said nothing.
They came for the Section 8 residents, but I wasn’t on Section 8 so I said nothing.
They came for the veterans, but I wasn’t a veteran so I said nothing.
They came for the disability recipients, but I wasn’t on disability so I said nothing.
They came for the mortgage defaulters, but I didn’t default so I said nothing…
* Not counting the Articles of Confederation, unlawfully tossed out in the Constitutional Coup, but that’s another discussion.