When the facts of a situation don’t suit your worldview, or when you’ve got an agenda to push that just doesn’t sync up with what the general consensus agrees to be reality, or you see an opportunity to promote your world view by latching onto a national tragedy, well, you don’t just let that door shut without sticking your foot in it. So where you and I and most of the world saw a horrible massacre involving a mentally disturbed person and a lot of dead, innocent kids, a few saw a massive conspiracy by the government to come and take all of our guns away.
Let’s travel down the slippery slope, shall we, to what I call Occam’s Beard. If Occam never had a razor, you see, he’d had a full, glorious, shaggy beard, and the simplest solution would not be likely to be the best one. Rather than a young man with emotional problems killing his mother, stealing her gun collection, and taking his frustrations with the world out on a nearby elementary school, it’s easier to believe that the government (or a faction within the government) is running a long con that involves getting an entire community, as well as law enforcement from surrounding communities, to fake a school shooting. This also involves hiring a troupe’s worth of actors, and paying off the media (who don’t really need to be paid off, because they’re in on it). This grand guinol drama will then tip public opinion so that the groundwork is laid for the government to take all of our guns away. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not in the coming decade. But the groundwork is laid.
The only other explanation, of course, is far darker and even more sinister. The shooter was part of an elaborate government psy-ops program, which turned him into a sleeper agent. He was activated and sent to actually go kill those people. He never would have done it on his own. The guy was made crazy and violent by our own government, to sway public opinion and lay the groundwork for them to swoop in and take all of our guns away. All roads lead to the government taking away our guns.
It’s a slippery slope, you see. It’s only a fraction of an inch from closing the gun show loophole that allows people to buy firearms without a background check to armed government agents kicking in your door and taking your pistol. Mandatory background checks will guarantee that will happen. A ban of assault rifles will invaribly, without question, lead to the requirement that you turn in all of your hunting rifles and shotguns, too. There is no other possible outcome.
We fear the government so much that we do not want them to take our guns, so we can, as needed, rise up against the government. That certainly presents a logical incentive for the government to allow us to have more guns, to let us shoot them (rather than vote them out of office) when we don’t like what they’ve done. This democracy at gunpoint has certainly thwarted corruption and ethical lapses so far. I know, that’s the point; imagine how badly politicians would run amok if we didn’t have them in our telescopic sights!
The only viable alternative to gun control is to have the government pay to put armed guards in all of the schools. We fear the government, but we want more armed government agents in public places. This is not a contradiction! This is not a flaw in logic! We need more armed government agents in public places so we have more things to fear and, in turn, a greater need for guns in case we need to rise up against the people we asked to be placed there. It makes perfect sense!
Those who disagree must fall prey to the greatest of classic propaganda tools, the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” maneuver. Tell a conspiracy theorist that they’re painfully uninformed and/or willfully ignorant, and they’ll scream that you’re the one who’s not playing with all of the facts. Accuse them of being a bit unbalanced, and they’ll shout that you’re the one with mental problems. The loud part is essential, of course; the greater the volume used to proclaim their opinions, the more their opinions become true.
The bottom line is that one of the few mistakes the Founding Father made was placing the right to keep and bear arms in the Second amendment. It should have been the First amendment. Heck, it shouldn’t have been an amendment at all, it should have been placed clearly in the body of the text. All of that other stuff, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion (my religious beliefs, you see, advocates non-violence), and all of that other stuff should be second, at best. Maybe further down than that. I don’t know. But guns has to take precedence to everything else, including education, fiscal responsibility, and health care. And anyone who uses their first amendment rights to criticize the second amendment should be considered an enemy of the state and forcibly deported.