Most Americans would agree that over the past several years we have witnessed an incremental loss of liberty. Since the election of Donald Trump, the patriotic vigilance that stood ready to defy tyranny and oppose “Obamaism” has died down and we have returned to a passive attitude of compliance, believing that under Trump, all will be fine. The media and their Democratic sidekicks continue to feign outrage over everything that Trump does while Trump himself continues to tweet undignified, cocky responses. The American people eat it up in our system of false choices and illusions of freedom, while an unnoticed agenda continues to evade the ignorant masses. Many people that voted for Trump were anything but principled conservatives so they may very well throw their support behind this agenda without understanding the implications. This agenda is gun control and it has more steam now than it did during the entire duration of Obama’s presidency.

Since the Parkland shooting, and Trump’s insistence that guns should be taken from people who are “a danger to themselves or others” before being afforded due process, a statement mind you that the White House attempted to walk back the next day, states have been passing the so-called red flag gun violence protection order into law. There are now thirteen total states where authorities may be ordered to confiscate firearms from someone simply because a judge, family member or other concerned party suspects they may be a danger to themselves or others. There’s that phrase again. It is a  pretty broad statement and this will be expanded on shortly. Coming into 2018 there were only five states with such laws, so this is an agenda rapidly gaining steam.

What does it mean to say a danger to yourself or others? Well, under President Trump, or sensible state governments it could very well mean exactly what it says. A person, for example, like Nikolas Cruz who clearly was making threatening statements should have been intercepted by law enforcement, arrested under current laws concerning threatening others and tried in criminal court. That would have been the proper thing to do, and anyone who is threatening others should also be arrested if the situation calls for it. There may be nothing to worry about here; however, if such a law were to be passed on the national level, and rumor has it a bill will be introduced this fall with the support of the American Medical Association, and an anti-gun liberal takes office, we all know how this law would be abused. That is why it is imperative to understand, no matter your position on Trump, that you have to watch and be ready to get involved and hold his feet to the fire because once a law is signed, especially one of this nature, it won’t go away.

To the majority of people who may have no vested interest in defending the Second Amendment, it would seem to make sense to confiscate guns from someone who may be a danger to themselves or others. Who defines this? Who decides what constitutes a danger? The United States Government, in a document that has yet to be denounced, has made it perfectly clear who they consider to be threats to society. Veterans, Christians, conservatives and gun owners who may be worried about the passing of restrictive gun laws which limit their freedoms. People who oppose government agendas such as unlimited abortion rights and immigration, as well as the belief that states are sovereign to federal power, are also considered possible threats.

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. 
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page 3 of 9

— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

— (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Despite the fact that these so-called violent right-wingers haven’t committed any acts of violence, and groups like Antifa continue to disrupt and harass right-wingers as if its some kind of moral obligation without a condemnation of any kind, it can be safely assumed that people opposing the liberal order could be targets of gun control.  It could reach a point where simply owning a gun could put you in the category of being a danger to yourself or others, and the fact that Trump is using this language is, in this authors opinion, alarming. Mainly because he has so many supporters who support the second amendment wholeheartedly, that think the man was ordained by God to fix the country and that he is playing four-dimensional chess every time he appears to cave in on a liberal agenda item.

There is something else that should have people concerned over the issue of denying someone due process before depriving them of life, liberty, and property and it goes back to a law passed by the Obama administration. In 2012 conservatives were up in arms over the National Defense Authorization Act which enabled the government to detain anyone indefinitely if they were considered to be a threat to national security. Could this indefinite detention provision and the passage of gun violence protection orders intersect somewhere down the road and be used to target all gun owners simply for owning a gun? Could opposing the so-called reasonableness of denying an individual due process if they have been declared to be a danger to themselves or others be grounds to be considered a danger to yourself or others? At what point will vociferously opposing big government be considered threatening behavior which warrants a knock on your door at 0300 hours in the morning?

This article was not written to spark conspiracy theories or stir the pot but to motivate those lovers of liberty to take a step or two back and pay a little more attention, and to stop putting your faith in one man. Look past the media sideshow which is deliberately staged to keep you fixated on politics like its some reality television program. Trump may be exactly who he says he is however, he has made the statement that his administration is working on legislation that would prevent people who are a danger to themselves or others from having guns. His language, not mine. If a law such as this is passed it will only be elaborated on in the future.

Trump calls on states to pass “risk protection orders” that allow law enforcement to take guns away from individuals they see as a threat to themselves or others, and pushes for Congress to pass two pieces of legislation on background checks and violence prevention programs.

To see some of the consequences of Florida’s red flag laws, where so far four hundred fifty people have had their guns confiscated, see my article “A Plea For Reason and the Fallacy of Red Flag Laws.”

Article posted with permission from David Risselada