Constitutional protection won’t matter

John Robb has presented us with an extremely interesting scenario:

Weaponized social networks have seized control of the political process from the traditional political parties and their media gatekeepers. They are in charge now and, more importantly, they are rapidly evolving. Getting more powerful with each passing day.

This effort gets teeth, and the capacity to impact millions of people simultaneously, through a list. A list of gun owners. A list built in part using leaked/stolen government data and through the reporting of friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, and more. A list that is potentially stored in a blockchain for durability and enhanced with rumors (statements or pictures of people on the list that makes them look dangerous). With this list in hand, network members would then turn up the pressure on individuals:

  • Employers would refuse employment or fire individuals who own guns, in the name of workplace safety, at the urging of other employees.
  • Parents would put pressure on schools to ban the parents who own guns from attending school functions or put in place extra security at schools targeting children living in gun owning households.
  • With pictures and and a little open source facial recognition software, anyone on the list could be IDed by anyone with a smart phone.

Get the picture? In short, everything from getting access to a building to renting an apartment to getting a date could get very hard for reputed gun owners to do nearly overnight.

All without legislation or government regulations.

Scare you a bit? It should.

I can see this happening in leftist enclaves but in the vast area of the country where guns and gun owners are accepted. The boycotts and shunning only work when those your are shunning are a small enough minority that you don’t really need them. Are they going to boycott most of the farmers, miners, and others who supply their water and energy?

That boycott won’t last more than a week and the payback may be far more than they bargained for.

And when the mobs surround the homes of gun owners I see visions of the shopkeepers with rifles on top of their buildings during the L.A. riots.

And what about the police? They are generally on our side even though their political overlords may not be. Will they be “unable to identify” the person who drove off the rioters attempting to torch someone in their car.

But, even in the best case imaginable above, the better result is to never get into the situation. Gun owners all need to “come out of the closet” and make it clear we are normal people. We do not have blood on our hands from the school shootings. We did not create the victim disarmament zones. We offer calm, rational, solutions and our opponents offer angry mobs.


12 thoughts on “Constitutional protection won’t matter

  1. The vast majority of gun owners I encounter contribute to this problem and are unwilling to do as the author suggests, in normalizing the ownership and carrying of firearms. Most will not go to the minor discomfort of carrying. Most of those who do carry wont open carry and instead hide it away like some kind of shame. They won’t discuss or advocate firearms issues. They won’t spend minutes writing to their congressmen. They won’t train with or teach their spouse and children about firearms. When doing their shopping they’ll choose to take their gun off at a gun free zone instead of choosing the minor inconvenience of going to a different store. They won’t spend tens of dollars to join the NRA or GOA. They cede to the misconception of “reasonable restrictions” based on what the average person needs to hunt geese or deer without regard for the historical purpose of the Second Amendment.

    Someone said that only three percent of the colonists participated in the struggle for freedom from British dictatorship. I estimate that in our modern day the number would be much closer to 0.3%.

  2. Medical providers asking about gun ownership, parents asking other parents about gun ownership before letting their kids go on a playdate, pro-gun shirts or hats being a “trigger” and Pop Tart guns – we’ve been seeing this kind of thing for a while now. It logically is going to get worse and we need to push back as much as possible.

    • Only quacks ask about gun ownership. I haven’t been asked yet. If my doctor ever does, I’ll tell her “that’s not a valid question”. If she persists I will walk out and not come back.

  3. Pingback: Weaponized Social Networks | Shall Not Be Questioned

  4. “…in the vast area of the country guns and gun owners are accepted”. Well, sort of. Consider the Texas company I work for, which posts “no guns allowed” signs on its doors and has a clearly stated ban in its employee handbook.

  5. Companies are moral cowards and generally afraid of lawyers.

    They will get on board the band wagon for prohibiting employee carry and even ownership of firearms until they cross the line and get a huge lawsuit against them.

    At first I thought it would be hard to argue in court that you fired an employee because of gun ownership when they broke no laws. Then I realized that they make it a condition of employment to be disarmed and it will be harder to make the case against them. Amazing though…my religion is protected but not my 2A.

    • The payout to your family after you are assaulted and murdered on the job is cheaper than a lawsuit against them for your actions as an armed person if it can be argued that you were acting as their designated agent. It’s literally more affordable for them to disarm you and let you die. Consider that next time management declares how much they value their employees.

  6. Pingback: The Captain's Journal » John Robb: The Social Network War On Guns

  7. Joe, you make a pertinent point, but it is irrelevant in the face of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of citizens who have no understanding of firearms ownership other than the negative opinions of Liberals who think we should allow ourselves to be murdered rather than exercise our right to protect ourselves and our families.

    Americans are today convinced by the prevailing opinion of Liberals that “Guns Are Bad”, and are only owned by people who are fearful that “The State” will
    NOT protect them from predators.

    You and I know that this is a fallacious argument, but try to sell that to people who are too cowardly to protect their home and families by arming themselves with firearms which they are determined to use to protect the most important parts of their lives.

Comments are closed.