In the emotional aftermath of two major shootings, one in El Paso and the other in Dayton, Conservatives once again are renewing among themselves the validity of red flag gun laws. While the issue seemed to have died in the after math of the Las Vegas Shooting, which after two years we know more about the two shooters over the weekend than we do about this one. But I digress. It’s frustrating because Conservatives seemed to have rejected red flag laws. We’ve seen an instance of death following the implementation of red flag laws in Maryland. Gary J. Willis was killed by police who sought to enforce red flag laws where otherwise he would still be alive and likely not have harmed anybody.
We have also pointed out that red flag laws pave the way, in streets of gold, for judicial abuse. One sad sob story could strip away the 2nd and 4th amendment rights of individuals. It’s frustrating when you see Conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Liz Wheeler flirting with red flag laws after phonies like Guy Benson call them sensible.
Trump pushes 'red flag' laws, which seems like a sensible step.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) August 5, 2019
Dan Crenshaw, who I have increasingly become suspicious of, tweeted red flag laws. We already know Trump is weak on the 2nd Amendment but how many Conservatives would be floating red flag laws if Obama was president? That’s a fair question to ask. But I want to drive the conversation with you, the reader, towards what my colleague wrote about red flag laws most recently, and I want to built the conversation from his words:
The 5th and 14th Amendments protects our right to due process. That means we have the right to defend ourselves in a court of law before our property is taken from us. Red flag gun laws deny this right to any of its victims.
But let’s take it a step or two further. What happens when the notion of behavioral law enforcement moves beyond red flag gun laws? They will. Once you open up that particular Pandora’s Box, it will be a free-for-all with precognitive law enforcement. Big data will be the real indicator of when people are about to commit a crime. They’ll use our social media posts to find indications that we may be patriots. They’ll put a red flag on anyone who visits 4chan, 8chan, or r/The_Donald on Reddit. They’ll track our moves to see how often we’re going to the gun range, how many rounds of ammunition we’re buying, and which “right-wing extremist” we’re listening to in the car.
These proposals are a step away from liberty and a step towards the authoritarian police state we’ve read about in dystopian novels. And for what? A solution that won’t even work.
This is not by any means hyperbolic. In fact, it is so realistic, the means we have seen different pieces of the dystopian puzzle being implemented, that for Conservatives to dismiss the confiscation Trojan horse that red flag laws are is short sighted at best and willfully ignorant at worst.
Conservatives are quick to think about solution to big tech censorship, for we are the victims. The media would have you concerned about Russian interference in our elections when Twitter, Facebook, and Google are capable and willing to a far greater degree to manipulate the uninformed populace. These same companies that hate all you stand for act accordingly. In China, Google is fine tuning their police state with Project Dragonfly. China developed a social credit system. In China their social credit score determines what its subjects can do or not do. Futurism notes:
In the end, even a basic SCS system that only rates a few data points could paint a very inaccurate and incomplete picture of a person. “You may be playing games for 10 hours and if the algorithm says you’re idle, it might miss the reason you’re playing these games. Maybe you’re an engineer and you’re beta testing them. But now you’re automatically designated as an idle person,” Lal added. “When in reality, maybe you were just doing your job.”
Ultimately, the problem is that “socially acceptable behavior” will be defined by the Chinese government, not a democratic process or an objective panel. And punitive measures will certainly be taken when a person breaks this trust.
With the SCS, the Chinese government will actually hit two birds with one stone: They will have a way of promoting and enforcing what they consider to be “socially acceptable behavior,” and they will have a way of monitoring virtually all aspects of citizens’ lives.
The United States has very primitive versions of this now. In fact, a number of images circling around Connor Betts, the Dayton shooter, were from websites that provide a very basic overview of a person. Candace Owens first became famous for wanting to create a doxxing website called Social Autopsy. The pieces are there and the ambition as well. The only thing that has not occurred is tech giants, the companies most able to competently pull off this scheme, rolling it out in America.
But when they do, how will the courts react in enforcing these red flag laws. Google will label people alt-right for listening to Ben Shapiro and that will be their label, and the court will see that this person is dangerous thus violating their rights. A petitioner, however malicious, will freely employ social media and a social credit score as evidence for stripping away a person’s liberties. In facing these petitioners, we are doomed, as Conservatives, to the mercy of the judge in every instance adhering to the spirit of the Constitution.
It’s #MeToo but with our guns, and we will be judged by the Kavanaugh standard. We Conservatives would never dare place such heavy reliance on judicial authority at the level of the highest courts. Judicial activism, abuse, is one of the most pressing existential threats to the US Constitution. Furthermore officers elected and unelected are oft moved by media narrative. The most obvious indicator that the Russian Hoax was indeed just political theater from the start was the media instantly after Trump’s victory in 2016 peddled the collusion narrative. And then the Special Council was formed because politicians acted upon conspiracy theories the media peddled. The media creates the narrative and the politicians act. It’s a miserable cycle to which judges high and low are not immune. thus the behavioral standards set forth by the Leftist media will be standards used to evaluate behavior.
This is by no means a hyperbolic extension to what my colleague wrote, for every time we slide down the slippery slope, we find ourselves in utter surprise by the ensuing public discourse. During the fight against Obamacare, Conservatives argued that it would lead to single payer, and within only months of Obama leaving office, this was the new Left’s overt policy. No Conservative argued that withing five years of the Obergefell decision, the Left would be actively promoting pedophilia. Obama couldn’t pass DACA with a supermajority, and now the Democrats are open borders. So, it is a moderate stance that artificial intelligence of tech giants will create a social credit score that will in turn be used to exploit red flag laws to violate individual liberties. By no means is this hyperbolic when the scenario falls short of Skynet taking over. Instead we are merely combining the existing threats of big tech censorship, judicial tyranny, and the calls for gun confiscation. This scenario is the manifestation of three readily apparent but separate issues.
If we accept the red flag law Trojan horse, it is easily foreseeable that tech giants will act on it, and judges will violate the liberties of individuals.
We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.
[gravityform id=”2″ title=”true” description=”false”]