When tragedies like this happen, the State relies on Compassionate Progressive™ sentiment to impulsively call for tighter, broader central regulation—generally for strict control over a specific facet of our lives [disaster relief, firearms, mass destruction, famine]). This impulse riles up a swath of citizens, and makes them susceptible to State expansion that they might otherwise oppose in moments of calm.
Of course, nothing can change too quickly, or you would upset the status quo, which can lead to unwanted revolution. The State doesn’t want to rock the boat, but it can incrementally shift the status quo over time. In order to sustain itself, it must continue to grow and to do that it needs financial and civil support.
Sure the State might not take away guns tomorrow, but it could very easily exploit this event to implement tighter control on our movement, and on our perceived rights. Just look at the TSA, which many Americans excuse as a ‘given’ inconvenience despite its gross corruption and institutional ineptitude.
What do I mean by ‘perceived rights’? I’m talking about rights inherent to our humanity, for which the legitimacy depends upon our perception. Those who support the right to bear arms do so because they perceive a necessity of personal ownership. Even some gun control advocates will pay it lip service.
Gun control does not (and will not) have to be about confiscating weapons, but rather about shifting our collective perception on what is and is not appropriate with respect to firearms. 2A hardliners may want to disagree with me here, but stick with me.
The debate around the right to bear arms and the role of the State in regulating that right will continue for the week as it always does, and as usual it will die down; the State is not going to outright goosestep down the streets and confiscate en masse. Instead, the media will gently shift the narrative to other, less invasive means to monitor and control people; theoretically band-aids to prevent seemingly unpredictable future tragedies.After 9/11, Congress signed the USA PATRIOT Act; most members never read the bill. The State used this foot in the door to expand the NSA, FBI, CIA and create the TSA; it also created the Department of Homeland Security, under which it were consolidated the Real ID and Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations (that’s movement and trade in layman’s terms). The State absolutely will tuck this tragedy into its arsenal to influence and advocate for additional security measures. Look today at sporting events, major metro stations, concerts. Now it will be casino, hotels, festivals. The fourth estate will happily wag its tail in exchange for influence on Capitol Hill.
It’s not just plausible, it’s reality.
But you can’t sell something so mundane through the energy of raw compassion. In fact, for most who voice this sentiment such a move would not be enough. However, the State would not upset its balance and would not immediately threaten our inherent rights. Instead, the State generally relies on the fears of Conservative Traditionalists™ to support the enforcement of this new, but still familiar, status quo. In this way, the perception of the right’s integrity remains in tact while in practice, those rights are diminished.
A penchant for the status quo is a crucial element of conservative ideologies—conserve is in the name. (Note, I am not talking about a left-right dichotomy). Just as this American sentiment helps to legitimize the ever-growing police state in the above-referenced facets of our lives, it would uphold future expansion too. If you aren’t convinced, then ask yourselves the following question.
How many more incidents of cops shooting peaceful—but armed—citizens would it take to convince you that people will absolutely defend this incremental growth in security (as they always have)? Police are already trigger-happy, and often presume whatever you’re holding is a threat. People defend it. They support it, and advocate it. Through this sentiment, the State will have its foundation to push the status quo just a little bit closer toward totalitarianism.
The second amendment is meant to guarantee our uninhibited right to bear arms, and yet we find ourselves living in a country where you are more and more likely to die for exercising that right (or for being perceived as exercising that right). Too often, those defending the former contrarily support the latter as well. In this way, the right to bear arms is perceived by the public at large as illegitimate if that right purportedly threatens a law enforcement official. This will invariably happen when some poor American walks into a hotel a security checkpoint with a gun, a knife, an oddly-shaped cell phone, an obscured wallet and the police claim they ‘feared for their life’ and kill them.
The State doesn’t have to take your guns away. It just has to convince you that there’s no problem when an agent of the State imperils that inalienable right by aggressing you. By influencing our collective perception on what is and is not acceptable (regarding the exercise of our rights), the State can shift the status quo to sustain its perpetual growth.