[Ed: Stephen D’Andrilli & Roger Katz are pro-2A Constitutionalist polemicists whom we enjoy reading. In this piece, first published February 6 at The Arbalest Quarrel, they raise important questions about the language and semantics of those who would cancel much of our freedom. Edited (and retitled) for space and clarity. Parts 3 & 4 on Thursday.]
PART ONE . . .
Democrats in Congress and the Administration are using the term ‘equity’ incessantly, without bothering to explain what they mean by it, which begs a person to ask:
WHAT DOES THE WORD ‘EQUITY’ MEAN AND WHAT IS ITS IMPORT? . . .
The word ‘equity’ . . . should mean nothing more than ‘equality,’ a synonym. Okay. But if the two words are synonyms, then why not use the term, ‘equality.’ After all, the word ‘equality’ has historical weight behind it. The word ‘equity,’ by contrast, does not.
Apart from extensive use of the word in politics and in the Press, ‘equality’ is a legal term of art, as is the adjectival form of the word, ‘equal,’ appearing prominently in both the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in federal legislation, and the import and purport of ‘equality,’ are discussed at length in legal treatises.
So, then, what devious intention or nuance lurks behind the use of the word, ‘equity,’ in lieu of the word, ‘equality,’ by . . . the Left? . . .
Are they using the word ‘equity’ in a novel way? If so, then offer an explanation for it.
If no novel use for the term ‘equity’ is intended, then why use it at all? The word, ‘equality,’ works just fine. But, having thrown the word out in the public domain, and with Democrats excruciatingly mindful of employing and emphasizing the word in their public discourse and when directing that talk especially to the Press, there must be some reason for doing so, and that is itself telling.
“PROGRESSIVE” USE OF NEOLOGISMS AND COMMON WORDS AND PHRASES WITH NEW TWISTS ALLUDE TO A MASSIVE PROPAGANDA EFFORT TO FORM, SHAPE, AND SWAY PUBLIC OPINION
The American public has seen the Radical Left . . . penchant for using common words and phrases in cryptic ways and for inventing new words and phrases, the meaning of which remains confoundingly mysterious. This must all be by design.
How often in the last several months have Democrat politicians and their friends and compatriots in social media and in the Press thrown the expression ‘systemic racism’ around? No one bothers to define it or provide evidence for its existence; why is that?
Even so, in asserting the words ‘systemic racism’ over again, the expression operates as a viral meme, a painful splinter in the public’s psyche, as it was meant to do. The public blithely accepts the existence of this thing, ‘systemic racism’, as it is expected to do, and many Americans obediently comply, accepting the existence of ‘systemic racism’, unskeptically, unconditionally, and uncritically. . . .
Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. . . .
If the Nation cannot return to its roots, irreparable harm, utter catastrophe will befall the it. Division, divisiveness, and suspicion of ‘the other’ have become widespread and are being deliberately fostered by . . . falsely accusing]Trump and his supporters for division, divisiveness in our Country. The Left only desires to unify the Country. . . via uniformity in thought and conformity of behavior, the antithesis of free, critical thought. . . .
Messaging is delivered through old vehicles and new, radio, television, and social media: through the airwaves, digital media, hard copy news media, and even word-of-mouth. The public is visited with the efficacy, effectiveness, of modern propagandistic techniques. The full range, potential, and destructive power of propaganda are visible to those people perceptive enough to look. Unfortunately, many people aren’t cognizant of the onslaught of propaganda on their psyche, and the impact it has had and continues to have on shaping their belief structures.
And, now with the word ‘equity’ bandied about regularly, . . . the propagandists have injected a new viral meme into the public psyche. The full impact and purpose of it have yet to play out, but something is definitely afoot: intimations of something far-reaching that will impact each American. And none of it is good.
Consider the Democrats’ policy positions on guns and on civilian gun ownership and possession, particularly. None of that is good either. Words DO have meaning. And those words that Democrats and the Press use when talking about guns are meant to amplify their abhorrence of them and to enact laws and to inject social policy directives that serve to undermine the very framework of a stable, cohesive society.
The American public had learned the disturbing truth pertaining to Federal and State antigun policy and rhetoric. And that painful truth will shortly be revisited upon them again and with a vengeance. This is a major concern for the forces that dare to crush a free Constitutional Republic, and it is all part of their plan for complete domination over the individual citizen.
ANTIGUN LAWS AND ANTIGUN POLICIES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FOUNDATIONS OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
Antigun laws and policies aren’t meant—were never meant—to create a cohesive, stable society, to protect public safety and order. They were meant—are meant and were always meant— to hobble the American people, to subordinate the citizenry to Government. This is contrary to the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution. The framers of the Constitution intended for the American people to be sovereign, not Government. . . .
Through the incorporation of the Nation’s Bill of Rights into the Constitution, especially through the exercise of the natural, fundamental right of free speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, this armed citizenry would have and was meant to have the ability to keep a powerful, deceitful, jealous Government and a riotous majoritarian mob, operating at the behest of a tyrannical Government, both in check, and thereby maintain its sovereignty over those forces that would dare to usurp the natural sovereignty of the people.
Obviously, the enactment of unlawful, restrictive gun laws and unlawful and, now, unprecedented restrictions on free speech are designed not to benefit the American citizenry but to harm it, irreparably, by removing from Americans the only effective means by which and through which Americans can maintain their sovereignty over Government: through the exercise of the natural, fundamental right of each individual to speak his or her own mind and through the right of each to own and to possess firearms in defense of self and family and to prevent the unlawful encroaching usurpation of power by and the onset of tyranny by the State. . . .
These laws, policies, and initiatives do nothing beneficial for society. Rather, they sow the seeds of suspicion, discontent, divisiveness, discord, and dissension between and among ethnic groups. In the bargain, these actions do long-lasting if not irreparable harm to the health, safety, and well-being of the populace, and ultimately fracturing and destabilizing society.
We have seen this sad, disturbing scenario played out before and repeatedly, and we have seen and continue to see the lasting harm it has done to our Nation. . . .
What we are seeing in just a few short weeks is a mammoth enterprise underway to rupture and destroy a free Constitutional Republic and to do so quickly.
Dissent as protected speech is not only strongly discouraged; it is systematically attacked, debased, degraded. A coordinated attack against the First Amendment is well underway, and a reciprocal attack on the Second is about to be launched.
—NYPD veteran Stephen D’Andrilli is President & CMO of Arbalest Group, with masters degrees in Criminal Justice and Public Administration. He is an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor & Training Counselor, and is passionate about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
All DRGO articles by Stephen D‘Andrilli
–Roger Katz is CEO of Arbalest Quarrel, and an attorney licensed in Ohio & Arizona (formerly New York) focusing on federal and state firearms issues. He has worked in patent, intellectual property, criminal and securities law and has degrees in English, Philosophy, Public Administration & Education. He believes in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.