The more I’ve ruminated on the marches and how the gun control movement hasn’t moved in 20 years, I’ve started to realize a few things:

One: the left -still- generally refuses to believe that evil exists and seems to think that it can be legislated out of existence.

Two: They don’t seem to have the aftermath of their laws in mind.

Let’s start with the immediate consequence, has anyone who supports the gun ban told you what you can fight crime with? In his book “A Time to Kill: The Myth of Christian Pacifism”, Gregg Hopkins notes that these people, known as “sheeple” to the self-defense community, have such faith in the government, and apparently believe the police that they’ll be able to take care of the situation before anyone at the crime scene would need to. or could be able to intervene.   “Response times vary according to the actual number of officers on duty, distance to the scene, priority of the emergency, and numbers of competing emergencies”. He notes that any meaningful intervention may have to wait until police have a better understanding of what’s going on inside, and enough officers arrive to intervene. This assumes, as we learned from Broward County, that they intervene at all.

(As an aside, isn’t it interesting that the same people who called the police “killers” and Trump “Hitler” now what Trump to take guns away and only allow police to have guns? Consistency is indeed a virtue.)

So the immediate consequence of civilian disarmament, which is definitely the goal, relies entirely on a police force that is still, despite efforts to assume they are otherwise (on this issue at least) fallible and human. But think now about the long term consequences of a gun ban. If the gun-control people get what they want, they  will face serious physical resistance. While using Australia as a model, the Left fails to see that the Australians of 1996 and the Americans of…well, frankly, most of recent history at least, have two diametrically opposed views on guns. There was no resistance to the 1996 confiscation of guns in the island nation, there absolutely would be resistance here. I know for a fact most of the rank and file of the Left have no idea what the implications are, they have generally said “we have to do something” and some piffle about Australia.

Let us consider that three scenarios here. The first is the notion that the Democrats know that they will never get the gun ban, and their constituents don’t know that. While I can’t imagine there would be a definitive moment where that becomes apparent, unless you consider the fact that they didn’t push any gun control when they controlled both houses and the White House after Sandy Hook. If this is the case, then they are using the issue to launch their own into Congress and tackle issues they actually care about and achieve goals that are a bit more realistic. A bit underhanded perhaps to manipulate those who already support you into supporting you more, but to the politician such activity is merely called “good tactics”.

Here are the scenarios that should worry us all; that democrats sincerely want the gun ban, but they have no idea the actual physical resistance they would face. They are stumbling into civil resistance they cannot control, before we get to the whole “the civilians wouldn’t challenge the military”, we need to get to the final idea; that they want the gun ban, are aware of the resistance they would face, and plow ahead anyway. They want a war for a gun ban. That notion is horrifying.

Now we can talk about the resistance to the gun ban. The physical resistance, not the hashtag one, and not the physical protest kind either, this resistance may actually kill you if you come for them. Before you start with the notion that the US citizenry couldn’t possibly hold up against the United States military, consider that the Viet Cong, Al-Qaeda, and thousands of other guerilla outfits throughout history may have something to say about the balance of power. Additionally, the United States government needs the infrastructure they’d destroy, and the people they’d kill in the aftermath of their gun ban becoming law.

Two final important points; some states bar the confiscation of weapons, even in an emergency (Kansas, Washington allows home and business carry, and of course there’s always Texas). Additionally, there is no guarantee that the military and police would obey the order to confiscate weapons. Keep in mind, the soldiers swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The government can become an enemy of the Constitution.

There is no evidence that, were it logistically possible, a gun ban would have any impact on gun crime. The sheer number of guns in circulation, and the fact that crime has collapsed in 30 years reveals that the “more guns=more crime” cliche isn’t supported by evidence.

Further, a 2003 study of the effectiveness of gun laws and gun buybacks among other things showed that every single one of them was a crapshoot in terms of their effectiveness, and several other studies seem to corroborate this. Meanwhile, a gun ban is coming after people who are not generally sources of guns for criminals, at least not willingly. A DOJ survey suggests that criminals get their guns by manipulating their friends into straw purchases or through other illegal means.

We come back then to our three scenarios, which boil down to one question: Are the people who support gun control, and especially a gun ban, ready to start a war in the name of something that will have minimal impact on crime? They have to hope that the people they have alienated and dismissed for 20 years are accepting of their prized creation, even though, as was established last time, they have made no effort at all to get to know firearms or their purpose in American culture.

One final note, those who come back at this notion saying they “only want” universal background checks and other “commonsense” gun laws (such a dishonest term), look at California, Illinois, New York, Maryland and Washington state. They “only wanted” universal background checks about 10 years ago, and have added so much more since; a magazine capacity limit, in California there was a de facto gun ban and they even required a new magazine release (a special key, and a “bullet button”) Illinois still hasn’t really done what they were supposed to after the McDonald decision, New York is California without the bullet button, Maryland is also home to ever-changing and more stringent gun laws, including an Assault Weapons Ban (and yet….Baltimore) and Washington state is threatening to turn into the aforementioned states

The fact that those in favor of gun control haven’t actually thought about what happens after this hypothetical ban passes. The notion that perhaps they have consider the future and are going to go forward with it anyway, should give those in favor of gun rights considerable pause. We may be dealing with fanatics. Worse yet, as established last time, they don’t generally know what they’re talking about in the present, and we now know they either haven’t considered, or are ok with, what could be a potentially violent future. All to say “we finally did something”. A movement that decides the societal cost of getting to a certain point and the consequences don’t matter is a movement that is more dangerous than any killer ever could be and just like the killer, must be fought tooth and nail at every turn.