Have been contemplating some thoughts from Clausewitz on disarmament - for the uninclined, fortunately in the very beginning of the book:
WAR THEREFORE IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE INTENDED TO COMPEL OUR OPPONENT TO FULFIL OUR WILL.
Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power. Violence, that is to say, physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of States and Law), is therefore the MEANS; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object.
***In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament becomes therefore the immediate OBJECT of hostilities in theory. ***
It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations.
3. UTMOST USE OF FORCE.
Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as War, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst...
Clauswitz. On War. Introduction, section 2 ff.
The ***bolded*** part is something for us to consider. By the very definitions of terms, a person you seek to disarm is your enemy. As evidence of this, Schumer et al, do not wish to disarm their select bodyguards, police forces with whom they agree (a few sheriff’s offices maybe), themselves, or the United Nations, among others. Nor do they actually seem as though they are seeking to disarm specific criminal individuals or even the Muslim Brotherhood, forthat matter. Their actual actions seem aimed at disarming the Public.
Now we have a logical puzzle here, if elected “public” officials consider the public to be their enemies, how can they be representatives of the people? How can a government which exists at the will of the people declare the people its enemy? If anyone or the whole does so, does it not declare himself or itself illegitimate? Should we not immediately call for the resignation or impeachment of any public official who declares himself the enemy of the people by saying he wants to disarm them?
I included some portions around it just for context, and the last line for our self declared enemies (I did not declare them thus, by these definitions) - these “philanthropists” are greatly, and gravely, mistaken in their opinions of their own wisdom and the nature of the conflict they are seeking to commence.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."