The Horrific, Predictable Result Of A Widely Armed Citizenry …  The killings in Dallas are one more reminder that guns are central, not accessory, to the American plague of violence … They are central now, when the increased fetishism of guns and carrying guns has made such horrors as last night’s not merely predictable but unsurprising. The one thing we can be sure of, after we have mourned the last massacre, is that there will be another. –The New Yorker

Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker is very upset about people carrying guns. He makes the standard arguments, but the post is unusual for its vituperation.

Gopnik, in fact, has authored a number of shrill, anti-gun articles over the years. But we’ve noticed, generally, that media-based anti-gun arguments are growing louder – as if rising decibel level will make up for lagging logic.

Often when a drastic legislative decision is taken, the mainstream media, or parts of it, seem alerted in advance.

It is speculative, therefore, but not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the current rhetoric is laying the groundwork for yet another legislative or executive confiscatory effort.

Yes, President Barack Obama may want at least one more dysfunctional and ruinous, broad-based executive action to punctuate his term in office.

His party is already cooperating. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has authored a bill banning gun purchases for anyone on Homeland’s no-fly list.

In June after the Orlando attack, President Obama top spokesman said Obama was not ruling out executive actions regarding gun confiscation

“The president has taken substantial executive actions using as much executive authority as he can,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. “I’m not going to rule out additional steps … he’s not going to hesitate to act.”

Obama’s initial statements regarding the Dallas shootings weren’t focused on the shooters but dealt with the weapons themselves.

In media interviews, Hillary Clinton reinforced the point:  “We did have an assault-weapons ban for 10 years,” Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “I think it should be reinstated.”

Not long ago, Vox Media writer Dylan Matthews tweeted for President Obama to “unilaterally” remove guns.

“This is not Dems‘ sales pitch but I’m totally down with letting the prez unilaterally ban people (hopefully everyone!) from buying guns,” Mr. Matthews tweeted.

Here’s some more from The New Yorker:

… Weapons empower extremes. Allowing members of any fringe of any movement to get their hands on military weapons guarantees that any normal dispute—political or, for that matter, domestic—can quickly lead to a massacre.

Our guns have outraced our restrictions, but not our imaginations. Sometime in the not-too-distant past, annihilation replaced street theatre and demonstrations as the central possibility of the enraged American imagination.

The article restates the point in several ways, and at one point indicates that those who support concealed-carry rights “guarantee that the murders will continue.”

The article finishes: “The country is now clearly divided among those who want the killings and violence to stop and those who don’t. In the words of the old activist song, which side are you on? “

Apparently Gopnik has forgotten that governments killed hundreds of millions in the 20^th century alone. Had those people access to weapons, they might have been able to defend themselves.

What’s interesting about the latest New Yorker rhetoric, is that it seems to expand the groups of people who should not be allowed guns to “members of any fringe of any movement.”

Since Homeland Security considers people who believe in the US Constitution to be operating on the “fringe,”  this statement may signal an entirely new frontier of potential gun confiscation.

Conclusion: In any event, the media agitation seems to be rising and that may indeed signal that there are more definitive executive or legislative actions on the proverbial horizon.