There are highly affective chokeholds which law enforcement forbids its officers from using. Officers caught applying these holds are subject to discipline and/or prosecution. Such maneuvers aren’t taught at police academies, but most officers still know how to use them. When faced with a desperate situation, some will use these chokeholds as a last resort.
The following is the wonky equivalent to such a maneuver applied to the gun control debate. WARNING: This action is unauthorized and those who apply it will do irreparable harm to themselves both professionally and personally. However, in desperate situation, it would be incredibly affective.
A move to ban Private Armed Security will paralyze the gun control movement. Like every major political movement, gun control is funded by wealthy donors. All of whom are protected by Private Armed Security.
Attempting to ban Private Armed Security would expose and target the people funding the movement. Even an unsuccessful attempt at such a ban would cause them to retreat into their shells. Not forever, but for a time.
If such a ban were successfully implemented, the gun control argument would be over for as long as the ban was in place. The wealthy would still be able to protect themselves. But instead of Private Armed Security, they’d hire drivers, PR reps, mechanics, etc. who had security training. Essentially the same people, doing the same jobs with different titles and without special permits. Those employees’ ability to carry firearms would be tied to the same 2nd amendment rights enjoyed by every American. In that case, any attack on the 2nd amendment would directly impact the safety and security of those who financed the attack. The financers of gun control aren’t more committed to the movement than their own safety. That’s how this ban would cut off the flow of money to gun control, like a chokehold cuts off a person’s air supply.
While affective, this course of action is unauthorized on the Right, because banning a legitimate industry goes against our free market principals. While not as unacceptable as losing our 2nd amendment rights, it’d still be a last resort. Also, it would impact many of our wealthy benefactors as well. They would be…. very, very upset.
These are just a few of the reasons why applying this maneuver would cause tremendous backlash from every corner of the political spectrum.
So, let me be clear, I’m not saying that the time has come for this course of action. I’m not encouraging nor endorsing it. But it’s important that we be educated about every possible response, just in case.