The late Sam Francis defined anarcho-tyranny as the State punishing and micro-managing in a tyrannical way, the life of ordinary (White) middle and working class people, while enabling the anarchy of violent, dangerous criminals (often though not exclusively Black and Hispanic). This is a feature of the Western world. But America’s gun culture, which is fairly ancient, is a response to anarcho-tyranny. Francis felt that anarcho-tyranny was an outgrowth of the “managerial state” of an elite embedded in massive bureaucracies in government and elsewhere that rule almost every aspect of daily life. But in fact this feature of anarcho-tyranny is very, very old, dating back to the Puritan colonies of New England, and the Cavalier colonies of Virginia.
Americans cling bitterly to their guns because the State has failed to protect them, through lack of resources, incompetence, corruption, nasty deals with foreigners, or all of the above, consistently from the days of the Great Warpath to the LA Rodney King Riots and last year’s flash mobs. This has profound consequences for any attempt to get rid of the guns of ordinary Americans (while retaining arms for the Secret Service, celebrities, etc). Nothing less than a revolution will happen if the safety valve of guns is removed.
America’s settlers, thinly populated, and highly vulnerable to Indian and/or French and Spanish attack, relied upon guns to protect them. As the colonial forces were thin themselves, and intermittent. King Philip’s War, with twelve of the the towns in New England ruined, a tenth of military age men dead, the economy ruined, is the first example of effective anarcho-tyranny. England’s military forces were notable for their complete absence. As the book “Conquered into Liberty” argues, this pattern continued with the French engaging and enabling Indian attacks on New England and Upstate New York. Again English forces were mostly absent or ineffective, and Americans turned to their own guns for defense.
This pattern continued in the South. Bacon’s Rebellion, against the English Governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, who refused to retaliate or respond to Indian attacks in Virginia. Again, Americans saw the Royal forces on the side, effectively, of their attackers. The pattern only continued in the Red Stick Wars, with various bands of the Creek Indians siding with settlers or committing atrocities against them, the government was ineffective until Andrew Jackson as President simply removed all Creek (and Cherokee) from the Southeast. However the Seminole Wars continued off and on even after the Spanish gave up Florida, William T. Sherman in his Memoirs online at Project Gutenberg, describes several edgy, tension-filled encounters with Seminoles in Florida in the 1840’s.
Nor was the violence in the South solely confined to Indians. The Regulator Wars in the Carolinas, in which citizen vigilantes took arms against a corrupt Royal Government in league with bandits, was a White against White affair. Considered to be a precursor of the Revolution. This pattern of corruption enabling banditry violence continued far past the Revolution itself.
Mark Twain in Life on the Mississippi, Project Gutenberg online edition, notes the history of Murel’s Gang, which is worth quoting at some length.
There is a tradition that Island 37 was one of the principal abiding places of the once celebrated ‘Murel’s Gang.’ This was a colossal combination of robbers, horse-thieves, negro-stealers, and counterfeiters, engaged in business along the river some fifty or sixty years ago. While our journey across the country towards St. Louis was in progress we had had no end of Jesse James and his stirring history; for he had just been assassinated by an agent of the Governor of Missouri,and was in consequence occupying a good deal of space in the newspapers.Cheap histories of him were for sale by train boys. According to these,he was the most marvelous creature of his kind that had ever existed. Itwas a mistake. Murel was his equal in boldness; in pluck; in rapacity;in cruelty, brutality, heartlessness, treachery, and in general and comprehensive vileness and shamelessness; and very much his superiorin some larger aspects. James was a retail rascal; Murel, wholesale.James’s modest genius dreamed of no loftier flight than the planning of raids upon cars, coaches, and country banks; Murel projected negro insurrections and the capture of New Orleans; and furthermore, on occasion, this Murel could go into a pulpit and edify the congregation.What are James and his half-dozen vulgar rascals compared with this stately old-time criminal, with his sermons, his meditated insurrections and city-captures, and his majestic following of ten hundred men, swornto do his evil will!
Here is a paragraph or two concerning this big operator, from a nowforgotten book which was published half a century ago–
He appears to have been a most dexterous as well as consummate villain.When he traveled, his usual disguise was that of an itinerant preacher;and it is said that his discourses were very ‘soul-moving’–interesting the hearers so much that they forgot to look after their horses, which were carried away by his confederates while he was preaching. But the stealing of horses in one State, and selling them in another, was buta small portion of their business; the most lucrative was the enticing slaves to run away from their masters, that they might sell them in another quarter. This was arranged as follows; they would tell a negro that if he would run away from his master, and allow them to sell him,he should receive a portion of the money paid for him, and that upon his return to them a second time they would send him to a free State, wherehe would be safe.
The poor wretches complied with this request, hoping to obtain money and freedom; they would be sold to another master, and run away again, to their employers; sometimes they would be sold in this manner three or four times, until they had realized three or four thousand dollars bythem; but as, after this, there was fear of detection, the usual custom was to get rid of the only witness that could be produced against them,which was the negro himself, by murdering him, and throwing his body into the Mississippi. Even if it was established that they had stolen a negro, before he was murdered, they were always prepared to evade punishment; for they concealed the negro who had run away, until hewas advertised, and a reward offered to any man who would catch him. An advertisement of this kind warrants the person to take the property, if found. And then the negro becomes a property in trust, when, therefore,they sold the negro, it only became a breach of trust, not stealing; and for a breach of trust, the owner of the property can only have redressby a civil action, which was useless, as the damages were never paid.It may be inquired, how it was that Murel escaped Lynch law under such circumstances This will be easily understood when it is stated that hehad _more than a thousand sworn confederates_, all ready at a moment’s notice to support any of the gang who might be in trouble. The names of all the principal confederates of Murel were obtained from himself, ina manner which I shall presently explain. The gang was composed of two classes: the Heads or Council, as they were called, who planned and concerted, but seldom acted; they amounted to about four hundred.The other class were the active agents, and were termed strikers, andamounted to about six hundred and fifty. These were the tools in thehands of the others; they ran all the risk, and received but a small portion of the money; they were in the power of the leaders of the gang,who would sacrifice them at any time by handing them over to justice, or sinking their bodies in the Mississippi. The general rendezvous of this gang of miscreants was on the Arkansas side of the river, where they concealed their negroes in the morasses and cane-brakes.
The depredations of this extensive combination were severely felt; butso well were their plans arranged, that although Murel, who was always active, was everywhere suspected, there was no proof to be obtained. Itso happened, however, that a young man of the name of Stewart, who was looking after two slaves which Murel had decoyed away, fell in with him and obtained his confidence, took the oath, and was admitted into the gang as one of the General Council. By this means all was discovered;for Stewart turned traitor, although he had taken the oath, and having obtained every information, exposed the whole concern, the names of allthe parties, and finally succeeded in bringing home sufficient evidence against Murel, to procure his conviction and sentence to the Penitentiary (Murel was sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment); so many people who were supposed to be honest, and bore a respectable namein the different States, were found to be among the list of the Grand Council as published by Stewart, that every attempt was made to throw discredit upon his assertions–his character was vilified, and more than one attempt was made to assassinate him. He was obliged to quit the Southern States in consequence. It is, however, now well ascertainedt o have been all true; and although some blame Mr. Stewart for having violated his oath, they no longer attempt to deny that his revelations were correct. I will quote one or two portions of Murel’s confessions to Mr. Stewart, made to him when they were journeying together. I ought to have observed, that the ultimate intentions of Murel and his associates were, by his own account, on a very extended scale; having no less an object in view than _raising the blacks against the whites, taking possession of, and plundering new orleans, and making themselves possessors of the territory_. The following are a few extracts:–
‘I collected all my friends about New Orleans at one of our friends’ houses in that place, and we sat in council three days before we got allour plans to our notion; we then determined to undertake the rebellion at every hazard, and make as many friends as we could for that purpose.Every man’s business being assigned him, I started to Natchez on foot,having sold my horse in New Orleans,–with the intention of stealing another after I started. I walked four days, and no opportunity offered for me to get a horse. The fifth day, about twelve, I had become tired,and stopped at a creek to get some water and rest a little. While I was sitting on a log, looking down the road the way that I had come, a man came in sight riding on a good-looking horse. The very moment I saw him,I was determined to have his horse, if he was in the garb of a traveler.He rode up, and I saw from his equipage that he was a traveler. I arose and drew an elegant rifle pistol on him and ordered him to dismount. He did so, and I took his horse by the bridle and pointed down the creek,and ordered him to walk before me. He went a few hundred yards and stopped. I hitched his horse, and then made him undress himself, all tohis shirt and drawers, and ordered him to turn his back to me. He said,’If you are determined to kill me, let me have time to pray before I die,’ I told him I had no time to hear him pray. He turned around and dropped on his knees, and I shot him through the back of the head.
I ripped open his belly and took out his entrails, and sunk him in thecreek. I then searched his pockets, and found four hundred dollars and thirty-seven cents, and a number of papers that I did not take time to examine. I sunk the pocket-book and papers and his hat, in the creek.His boots were brand-new, and fitted me genteelly; and I put them on and sunk my old shoes in the creek, to atone for them. I rolled up his clothes and put them into his portmanteau, as they were brand-new clothof the best quality. I mounted as fine a horse as ever I straddled, and directed my course for Natchez in much better style than I had been for the last five days.
‘Myself and a fellow by the name of Crenshaw gathered four good horses and started for Georgia. We got in company with a young South Carolinian just before we got to Cumberland Mountain, and Crenshaw soon knew all about his business. He had been to Tennessee to buy a drove of hogs, but when he got there pork was dearer than he calculated, and he declined purchasing. We concluded he was a prize. Crenshaw winked at me; I understood his idea. Crenshaw had traveled the road before, but I never had; we had traveled several miles on the mountain, when he passed neara great precipice; just before we passed it Crenshaw asked me for my whip, which had a pound of lead in the butt; I handed it to him, and he rode up by the side of the South Carolinian, and gave him a blow on the side of the head and tumbled him from his horse; we lit from our horses and fingered his pockets; we got twelve hundred and sixty-two dollars.Crenshaw said he knew a place to hide him, and he gathered him under his arms, and I by his feet, and conveyed him to a deep crevice in the brow of the precipice, and tumbled him into it, and he went out of sight; we then tumbled in his saddle, and took his horse with us, which was worth two hundred dollars.
‘We were detained a few days, and during that time our friend went to a little village in the neighborhood and saw the negro advertised (a negro in our possession), and a description of the two men of whom he had been purchased, and giving his suspicions of the men. It was rather squally times, but any port in a storm: we took the negro that night on the bank of a creek which runs by the farm of our friend, and Crenshaw shot him through the head. We took out his entrails and sunk him in the creek.
‘He had sold the other negro the third time on Arkansaw River for upwards of five hundred dollars; and then stole him and delivered him into the hand of his friend, who conducted him to a swamp, and veiled the tragic scene, and got the last gleanings and sacred pledge of secrecy; as a game of that kind will not do unless it ends in a mystery to all but the fraternity. He sold the negro, first and last, for nearly two thousand dollars, and then put him for ever out of the reach of all pursuers; and they can never graze him unless they can find the negro;and that they cannot do, for his carcass has fed many a tortoise and catfish before this time, and the frogs have sung this many a long day to the silent repose of his skeleton.’
Twain was quite taken with the story of Murel’s Gang. In Tom Sawyer, Injun Joe finds the treasure, and later Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn grab it after Injun Joe starves to death.
This sort of thing continued out West. The Committee of Vigilance was formed in Gold Rush San Francisco (Sherman talks at length of this in his memoirs) in response to the corrupt government in league with (mostly Irish New York) gangsters. Said gansters demanding protection money and killing one of the reforming newspaper publishers (James King of William, and yes that was his name). Which in turn touched off a Vigilance Committee formed of mostly Gold Rush store owners, workers, and skilled tradesmen who were in turn mostly demobilized Mexican War veterans fed up with the gangsters and the corrupt California Governor (Sherman is quite clear on that matter) and city government that enabled them.
Said Vigilance Committee broke into jails, hung a couple of the worst gangsters (including the alleged killer of James King of William), and paraded around town armed to the teeth, having broken into the local armory. Sherman was involved in abortive attempts by the Governor to get the US Army to disband, disarm, and destroy the Committee, but the Army pointedly declined.
Gun ownership was seen as the remedy to distant, ineffective, corrupt, and problematic government in league with gangsters, brigands, bandits, hostile Indians, and attacking foreigners (the latter first French and Spanish, later Mexican). Americans wanted guns, and bought all they could, as long as these conditions held. In turn, these conditions lasted from the very first settlement in Jamestown, in 1607, to about the early 1900’s, when law and order and the Progressives first began to be effective. Before that, anyone who relied upon the forces of the government to protect him was a fool, and soon dead. If not by Indians, by someone like Murel.
It is important to note that Black and Hispanic crime as experienced now was pretty much unknown. Whites did not tolerate the routine victimization that we see today, for better and worse. And the worst of it was enforced by brutal ad-hoc lynchings, a separate and unequal legal system, and nearly immediate punishment for the slightest transgressions. This system of punishment outside the law existed in the West, too, and was directed mostly at the Chinese who Whites felt to be an existential threat, of mass immigration and cheap labor and anti-White violence. Nearly all the violence in the period 1607-1900 or so, was by other Whites, or Indians, or some combination.
With the closing of the frontier, all that remained of the old border wars was Mexico. Pancho Villa was likely responsible for a spike in gun ownership particularly close to the Mexican border. The Thompson submachine gun was even marketed to ranchers as defense against another Villa style raid, which remained common into the 1920’s on smaller scales.
And it was in this period, particularly in New York, where Progressives first started anti-gun laws, with some success, as gun ownership declined because threats declined, along with an increase in the effectiveness of government. [Backed however silently by anti-Black/Hispanic laws, and lynchings, to be very blunt.] The Sullivan Law and subsequent acts pushed by Progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt, were aimed at Irish and Italian gangsters, in the great cities of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. The idea that Black and Hispanic gangsters and ordinary criminals would kill White people was ludicrous at the time, a swift lynching party would have resulted if the State did not quickly arrest and execute the offenders first. And the laws were relatively effective, in that most people were adequately protected by the police. Irish and Italian (and Jewish, such as Detroit’s Purple Gang) gangsters adhered to a “no civilians” code and kept their murders fairly discreet for the most part, certainly not on the scale of Murel’s Gang. For fear of the public retaliating with an unleashed police force.
As America from the 1930’s onward moved from rural, lonely places to big cities filled with police, and then safe, middle class suburbs, gun ownership declined fairly substantially. So too did violence of all kinds, related to guns or not. America from say, 1946 through 1960, was a fairly safe, secure, and bourgeois type of place. It was and is now derided as “boring” but was marked by low rates of violence. The government was mostly trusted because it only had to restrain the White low-lifes, the Murels, intent on violence, and was fairly non-corrupt, professional, and focused on a manageable crop of criminals. Blacks and Hispanics (and Chinese in the West, Japanese were and are intrinsically orderly and abstained from anti-White criminal violence) were managed by again, Segregation and Lynching. To be blunt but true.
The true cost of low rates of murder and mayhem among Whites (and all races) in a multi-racial society with significant (about 10%) non-White populations was a fairly robust and extra-legal process of lynching. The innocent along with the guilty. Whites too were not immune from this either. Even up through the 1930’s. [WWII seems to have put an end to this.]
It was only with the unleashing of Black and Hispanic criminal behavior, and the alliance of elite and semi-hereditary White elites with massive, bloc voting Black and Hispanic populations, that the old anarcho-tyranny returned. This time in the place of California’s corrupt Governor, or William Berkeley, we had White elites in alliance with not, Red Indians but Blacks and Hispanics, to drive out and annihilate Whites from as much territory as they could. Ethnic cleansing, to be blunt again.
Hence the growth in gun ownership. And the desire, intense and focused, by elite Whites (and White women allied with White elites which is most of them) to disarm America (save elites and their bodyguards).
A gun is merely a tool. By itself it means nothing. Held by a man, or a woman, it equalizes physical strength, and numbers. The Henry Rifle, dating to 1860, held 16 rounds of .44 caliber bullets, and had an effective rate of fire of 28 rounds per minute. Guns like the Henry, allowed those outnumbered, or physically weaker (Doc Holliday, tubercular, and weaker than a saloon girl, being a good example) to be as dangerous as those tall and muscular men with twice or more their strength. Which is why, in times of recurrent or intermittent danger, people want them. And others do not want them to have them.
the Latest Pew Polling results, courtesy of HotAir, have breakdowns on men and women on gun ownership and control. White men, 62-32, favor ownership rights over gun control. White women, 40-51, favor gun control (the 51 percent) over gun ownership.
In America today, there is a gender divide among White men and women on gun ownership, and by implication, anarcho-tyranny.
Women, basically have one biological strategy to deal with an attacker: surrender. Yes women can and do get it in the neck during massacres, but generally speaking, it is a better bet to submit and have kids with the conqueror. Even if he killed your husband, sons, brothers, uncles, and cousin. French women in the Vichy Regime staged their own unconditional surrender to the Nazis, creating a baby boom. Meanwhile their men languished in Nazi POW or work camps. It was a very good time for French women, a bad time for French men. History is replete with stories like this. It makes biological sense: as long as a woman can have another kid by the conqueror, its a better bet (or her daughters the same, etc.) Scientists observe this behavior in not just primates but most social animals.
For the most part, men suffer greatly by surrendering and submitting. No matter how Alpha, they move instantly to not just beta male but omega male status. Which of course creates an intense desire to regain Alpha-dom by extreme violence in turn.
Gun ownership benefits ordinary White guys who suddenly become the equal of say, a Colin Ferguson killing the White people on the Long Island Railroad. Or an Omar Thornton doing the same to White men in New Haven last year. Or a Cookie Thornton, killing people at the Kirkwood City Hall. [Note, all are mass killers. All are Black. All targeted White people.]
The last thing most White women want is White guys who are not Alpha to become defacto Alpha by gun ownership. Hence the Pew split by gender among Whites. White women instead are allied with non-Whites, principally Blacks and Hispanics, and elite Whites, to disarm most ordinary White people and leave only police and celebrities and government officials with bodyguards armed.
Which is Anarcho-Tyranny. William Berkeley would have been proud.
Since say, 1960, American life has been dominated by an alliance of White women, gays, lesbians, Blacks, Hispanics, and White elites against ordinary White men. With the collapse of marriage among younger Whites (say, under 50) this alliance has grown only stronger. But it has limits.
These limits are the periodic reminders of how unwilling the government is to protect ordinary Whites (and also, Asians) against Black riots, which feature mass violence against any and all non-Blacks. The Rodney King riots are a good example. On April 29th, 5 pm, the LAPD abandoned most of Los Angeles to the rioters. Famously running away at Florence and Normandy leaving lone White guy Reginald Denny to be nearly beat to death on live TV. By a Black mob. Which was never seriously punished for the crime, either. It took four days for the National Guard and Marines to be deployed, during which Black gangs and mobs had free run of most of the city. With no real LAPD presence or effectiveness. Famously, the Korean shop-owners of Korea town stood on their roofs with AR-15s and other rifles to prevent their shops from being looted and burnt. However it took a full month (the end of May) for real order to be restored and the National Guard withdrawn. The Crown Heights riots of the same period also apply. As do the Detroit and LA riots of 1967, and other less well known local riots by Blacks.
Because Black voting blocs are key parts of most urban political machines, the mayors, governors, and other authorities will dither and avoid making a decision for days. Days in which Black mobs will run riot. And do as they please. Basically for four days or more, there will be no law. No order. The only defense against being beaten, robbed, tortured, and murdered is a gun. That’s it. Every White and Asian person will be on their own. For at least four days. [This is why people WANT so called "assault rifles" ... to hold off a mob of Black rioters like the Korean shop owners.]
Thus gun control is merely about disarming and making helpless, most White Americans. So that they can be preyed upon with impunity by Black and Hispanic criminals, and periodically subject to ethnic cleansing by Black mobs in Black riots. White women swing about twenty points from White men’s view on guns, for precisely this reason. For them, it is a matter of solidarity and surrender, Vichy style. Moreover, the very (feminine) argument for Gun Control is that “of course” the real problem is those icky beta White males, and if we just regulate guns out of existence, then they won’t exist. And no one, will ever ever use them.
Harry Potter fans may recall this as the position of Dolores Umbridge. I.E. the Big Brother-esque desire to deny the existence of Lord Voldemort, in the theory that doing so would make the problem go away. And to make self-defense a mere theory, nothing else. This is naturally, a very feminine approach to problems. To use the power of “mean girl shunning” and social cliques writ large, for social control. And like most feminine approaches, it works very well — until it catastrophically fails. In contrast the “Saddam Hussein” approach to male brutality and domination tends to work intermittently but more robustly at the edges. It more degrades rather than fails absolutely absent foreign invasion and domination.
This is the Progressive way of doing things as well. Gone, abandoned are the Teddy Roosevelt era reforms of efficient, and professional policing that provide real safety. In its stead is the old return of Anarcho-Tyranny. Gone is the reality of safe streets (supported sub-rosa by lynchings and Jim Crow) and replaced by the reality of constant, grinding street crime wherever Black people are a substantial minority. The reason NYC did not go the way of Detroit is that Black themselves have been economically cleansed by “NuYoricans,” aka Puerto Ricans, and other Caribbean Latinos, along with Mexicans, accompanied by Rudy era stop and frisk actions (that are being repealed piece by piece by Mayor Bloomberg to make Blacks and “NuYoricans” happy). “NuYoricans” being the informal name for those of Puerto Rican descent born and raised in New York, a substantial population not beloved by other groups as the Seinfeld episodes depicting them (as gay thugs) attests.
Now, Progressives, Liberals, elites, whatever you want to call them, focus on the anarcho and the tyranny side of the equation. The punitive measures are not aimed at criminals (most of those are Black or Hispanic). Rather, they are aimed at the White middle and working class who the Progressives see as an existential threat to the utopia they are building, Dolores Umbridge style, bit by bit. Mayor Bloomberg is a good example. Instead of making sure streets are plowed after a blizzard, and generators and water positioned before a hurricane, the Mayor focuses on taking guns away from rural Red Staters, regulating the salt and sugar content of snacks and sodas, the size of the big gulp you can buy at the corner market, and where and when you can smoke.
Much of this is the path of least resistance. Black and Hispanic voters threaten to stay home, if their demands for freedom to wage war upon the White Middle and Working classes are not met. Like the Indian allies of the French, Spanish, and British, they are too important in the war against the ordinary White person. So there are no gun sweeps of South Side Chicago planned. Gun confiscation may be on the table according to Governor Cuomo, and Jerry Brown may have signed a law outlawing public carrying of even bolt action long guns and shotguns, but rest assured there will be no sweeps of Watts or the South Bronx to take the guns of “gangstas.”
So what is likely to happen?
Democrats who basically, lied about supporting gun rights, such as West Virginia Senator Manchin, or Bob Casey, will go along with a gun ban, including confiscation. There will be a mobilization of the National Guard to simply seize guns (the best ones going to connected officials and influential and wealthy celebrities). Most guns will be seized.
But NOT the guns of Black and Hispanic criminals, gangstas, low-lifes, and thugs. That’s the whole point. That’s the William Berkeley strategy.
And like William Berkeley, it is likely to provoke an insurrection. One at least as sustained as the Bacon Rebellion, and possibly as sustained and long-lasting as the American Revolutionary War.
No, the insurrection gun seizure, combined with purposeful victimization by the new “Red Indians” (Black and Hispanic criminals) will not create a violent rebellion with a militia and such. But you will see massive civil disobedience and likely, low-level violence and intimidation as happened during the Alcohol ban of Prohibition.
Black and Hispanic criminals will retain their guns, and institute a reign of terror against Middle and Working class Whites. Who will in turn likely rely on criminal networks, the same ones supplying many of them with illegal drugs, for guns. But not relatively benign semi-automatic guns seen now, but “the hard stuff” as with drugs (and Prohibition). Fully auto guns (if you’re going to go to jail, might as well go in as a lion as a lamb). Silenced automatics. Juries will start to act as well, Black juries. Simply fail to convict if the majority or even minority of jurors are White. In solidarity. You’ll see government openly identified as the enemy, as it was during Berkeley’s time, in the Carolinas in the 1760’s, in the South during the Red Stick Wars, in San Francisco in the 1850s, in much of America in the 1970s, during the heyday of the Death Wish movies and the birth of Marvel Comics “the Punisher.”
This has not just happened once. It has happened many times in American history. Elite government viewing the population as the enemy has refused to provide any protection against enemies, either non-White attackers or bandits who are corruptly in league with them. The people rise up, sometimes in failure, sometimes not, and in any event arm themselves.
Because America is not England, nor Norway, nor Japan, nor France.
America is a very big nation. With lots and lots of borders and oceans to smuggle things in, even when the authorities try very hard to stop it (as they did in Prohibition). Americans also have money, enough to buy guns. And there are world-wide, gun manufacturers and organized crime rings just salivating at the money to be made supplying America’s ordinary White middle and working class with the equalizer to the thugs threatening them (mostly but not exclusively Black and Hispanic). As the elites fail to provide any real protection.
Americans have put up with “security theater” because there is no alternative to flying. But the cost of “security theater” is that the planned degradation and humiliation of everyone not a high official or celebrity is most people avoid flying if humanly possible. Some must, to visit relatives cross-country, to take a foreign vacation, on business. But everyone else who can do so will drive rather than fly, or teleconference rather than fly. There is no accident that in an industry admittedly with over-capacity, falling demand has meant bankruptcy for many an airline. What is not seen is the silent boycott of simply not flying.
I fully expect some kind of massive gun confiscation. The Progressives have bet everything on this, and Obama has never failed before to get his way. He won’t now, either. Republicans and the NRA are outnumbered. And the Supreme Court is in Obama’s pocket. Obama can (and likely will) simply rule by fiat, with acclaim from the Press which remain his boot-licking (literally) lackeys.
BUT … going by history, the response will be secret societies, masked violence, vigilante action, and widespread evasion of gun bans widespread popular revolt. The first, the second, even the third revolt may be suppressed, but eventually one will succeed. And then there will be a purging of the elites, and their supporters. I fully expect something like the expulsion of the Tories after the Revolution to happen, eventually.
The unspoken story of American history is that government has mostly been a failure. Remote, corrupt, inept, and incompetent. Eliot (the author) of “Conquered into Liberty” notes that the Founding Fathers had confidence they could succeed against the world’s only remaining superpower of the time, Great Britain, because they had seen the sustained incompetence of British leadership up close in the French and Indian War. For all their political power, no one would accuse Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, Charles Schumer, Andrew Cuomo, and Eric Holder of brilliant leadership and savy political acumen. Its one thing to roll say, a John Boehner. Its another to take on the modern equivalent of the Committee of Vigilance, made up of ex-soldiers who’ve seen action, face lifetime poverty if they don’t succeed, and feel betrayed by their government.
The last effective bit of government was landing on the moon. Everything else since then has been massive failure, corruption, and incompetence, if the press reports it or not. Even a member of the elite, a White woman like JK Rowling, sensed it and had as a theme of the Harry Potter books the absolute inability of the “authorities” to do much of anything to stop Voldemort. Though of course Rowling would heartily support disarming icky Beta White male gun owners, due to the magical goodness of non-Whites. No one really trusts a government that cannot even make the streets of Detroit safe, for nine month old boys in their own home, asleep. Much less with their own lives and safety.
Obama will have his way. And face an endless series of running revolts that he will eventually lose from attrition if nothing else. For this reason: White guys don’t like being killed. And can’t just sleep with the killers to appease them. So they will fight. And fight in endlessly inventive ways. White men have mostly been patriotic, pro-government (a legacy of WWII, and NASA, both enormously popular with White guys in various forms, as they embodied massive White guy mobilization for success). The Murels have been mostly absent, save a few regional varieties like Whitey Bulger.
So far, gun ownership has been a safety valve for White guys, along with porn, and various violent first person shooter video games. Safety, sexual coping absent icky and depressing prostitution, and vicarious thrills to replace the meaning taken away by being low man on the diversity totem pole (straight White guys are last for Diversity Inc.)
Gun ownership will not go away. You’ll just get a Prohibition society with widespread evasion of the law in hard times. Imagine Prohibition lasting all of the Depression, instead of just a few years. Now imagine half of White America carrying illegal guns and doing their best to conceal their identities (ball caps, hoodies, etc). Imagine most White guys considering the law, the government, and all that goes with it their enemy (and the tax revenue that accompanies that attitude). America will turn into something akin to Italy or Lebanon. It has before. It will again.