This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, August 22, 2016:
German Pastor Richard Niemoller (pictured) wasn’t the first to discover how totalitarians complete their takeover, but he is remembered for waxing poetic about just how the strategy works:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.
In the early 1930s, Niemoller supported Hitler. But when he observed the tyrant’s strategy of isolating his enemies and then eliminating them one by one, he opposed him. Niemoller spent years in a German concentration camp, and, upon his release in 1946, explained what he had seen with his own eyes:
[In] 1933 the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it. It was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice? Maybe the Confessing Church?
We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians – “Should I be my brother’s keeper?” [No].
Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said:
Perhaps it’s right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn’t it best for all concerned if they are taken out?…
We can talk ourselves out of [resisting] with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out.
Later Niemoller was even more explicit:
The communists: we let that happen calmly; and the trade unions: we also let that happen; and we even let the [elimination of] the Social Democrats happen. All of that was not our affair. The church did not concern itself with politics at all…. In the Confessing Church we didn’t want to represent any political resistance….
Versions of Niemoller’s poem appear today around the world as a constant reminder that the best way for a dictator to rid himself of his enemies is to attack and eliminate them one by one.
In America today the final barrier of resistance to the installation of a totalitarian dictatorship is the Second Amendment: the individual right of a sovereign citizen to keep and bear and use arms. Consequently it draws fire from many quarters, even from those who wouldn’t understand a word of what’s being said here.
First it was gangs in the mid-1930s, leading to the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which made it exceedingly costly for one to own fully automatic machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers (suppressors), and other “destructive devices” like grenades, bombs, etc.
Who cared about that? It was the bottom of the Great Depression, after all, and a vast number of people were more concerned about where their next meal was coming from than about freedom to own firearms like these.
Fast forward to the Gun Control Act of 1968. It was passed in the aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy, who (allegedly) was shot by a rifle purchased by mail-order from an ad in the NRA’s magazine, American Rifleman.
The attacks on the Second Amendment continued. The Brady Bill was passed in 1994 following the assassination attempt on President Reagan, but was allowed to expire in 2004. The gun registration system, euphemistically called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), remains in place.
The anti-Second Amendment agenda continued with claims that veterans and members of so-called “right-wing” groups were dangerous and should be watched closely. More recently the Social Security Administration is now funneling data to the NICS of every recipient who uses a bookkeeper or other financial assistant to manage his or her affairs. Gunsmiths are being fined out of existence. And so on.
The latest target is senior citizens, under the “reasonable” guise that many of them may not be able to handle firearms thanks to various infirmities that afflict oldsters: poor eyesight, mental acuity, weak hands, etc.
The attack was ramped up last week, perhaps unknowingly, by two college professors who vented over the danger seniors “may” or “might” or “could” represent to the general public. First up was Shannon Frattaroli, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who told the Silver Century Foundation:
When I think about older adults and access to guns, the thing that immediately springs to mind is their incredibly high rates of suicide – and suicides from guns in particular. From a public health perspective, that’s a really big concern….
With that in mind, any conversation about guns has to include a conversation [about] gun ownership among older adults.
And then she added ominously:
There’s definitely more to be done on that issue in the United States. (emphasis added)
Cher Ann Kier, a licensed clinical social worker affiliated with the University of Washington, went a step further:
If someone has frontal lobe dementia … he could be at a greater risk of using that firearm to harm themselves or others as they misinterpret their environment.
[Dementia can result in] behavioral discontrol [sic] and angry outbursts and … could result in gun violence.
California continues to lead the attack. On January 1, anyone may invoke a GVRO (a Gun Violence Restraining Order) on anyone else who might be suspected somehow of being at risk either to themselves or to others. The law overrides guarantees in the Fourth Amendment that sanctions may apply only with “probable cause,” as a GVRO can be based on just “reasonable” suspicion. The suspect (victim) isn’t even advised of his rights, nor allowed to confront his accusers. Police show up at the door, without a warrant, and confiscate his weapons. It’s all perfectly legal and justified, according to Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore: “This law gives us a vehicle to cause [force] the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will. It allows [time for] further examination of the person’s mental state.” He added: “It’s a short duration and it allows for due process.”
The “due process” he refers to applies only long after the weapons have been seized. After a waiting period, the victim may sue to get them back. But he or she has to prove a negative – that he/she is of no risk to himself/herself or others.
The latest attack, all dressed up to look “reasonable,” exposes the real end of the totalitarians: everyone is a danger in some way to everyone else and so everyone must be relieved of their firearms.
Peacefully, of course.
NRAILA.com: Professor: Take Granny’s Gun
Breitbart.com: New Gun Control Idea: Take Guns from Senior Citizens
AmericanMedia.org: Armed and Aging: Should Seniors Face Tighter Gun Controls?
SilverCentury.org: Armed and Aging: Should Older Americans Face Tighter Gun Controls?