The Vile Consequences of Gun Control

There is a vision by many in the world that if only weapons were banned there would be less death attributed to weaponry. This is particularly evident in the gun control crowd. In the old west movies the townspeople were usually defenseless or not proficient with guns and relied on the heroic gunslinger to rescue them for their lack of ability and/or courage to face down the thugs. Although fiction, the premise behind this portrayal was valid. When the only guns available are those illegally possessed and/or acquired, the law- abiding live at the mercy of the government. If the government is inept, ill equipped, corrupt, unrestricted by law and/or focused on other priorities than protection of its citizenry then there is only an open gate for thuggery to enter and pillage, destroy and kill.

We are fortunate that the founding fathers had the foresight and the courage to address this issue via the 2nd amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Having experienced a British practice of entering and pillaging homes and businesses of Americans they recognized the principle of self defense and positioned this clearly as a part of the law of the land. The pacifists and those who have the naive notion that outlawing guns will result in no one having guns ignore the nature of criminal mentality. Whether a criminal mind is controlling a petty thief’s ambitions or a dictator’s global conquest attempt ,it works the same way. Reduce resistance either by deception, intimidation or ultimately superior force the strategy is always the same. Get what you want and do whatever it takes . This mentality is not part of the mentality that offers values and receives voluntary compensation. The perverse ambition of the criminal is based on nothing more than the statement, “ I want”. And if those wants will not be freely given there is only one alternative in their minds, “ I’ll get it if I have to take it”. Thus the robber shoots the victim who resists and the dictator eliminates his opposition that threatens his regime. The pacifist ignores this reality and has an impossible hope that criminals and despots will somehow be deprived of their desire to conquer the unarmed.

A law that calls for keeping guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens never mentions that the means of enforcing such a law rests on the fully armed government agents to enforce the law. This means guns must be produced. It means that only the government agent can possess a gun. This means that the criminal will acquire these government guns either by bribe or theft. And the law abiding will be subject to the criminal minds who have now been freed of the worry of having their victim defend themselves. This was evident in the Florida shootings near airports where rental cars contained air passengers who were prevented from flying with self protection. Did the government agents arrive in time to prevent these killings? Response time cannot be reduced to the split second an armed victim needs when confronted with a threat to his life or property. The naive believe this is not a major issue. The naive experiencing a death threat with no other means of protection necessarily perish. The passengers and/or flight crews on the hijacked planes on 9/11 could have stopped the hijacking and the subsequent horror if not for the naive notion individuals need protection whether the government is available or not. This fantasy of no guns, no crime is much like the fantasy of no soldiers, no war. If you were a despot and wanted to invade someplace like Kuwait which you knew was ill equipped to defend itself and its citizens you would be assured your army would be superior, well armed and victorious ...unless a well armed country came to their aid and neutralized your ability to conquer. This is the irony of American foreign policy. We tell our friends we will provide protection while knowing the government cannot be everywhere with a superior force. Just as the naive would have the citizens disarmed and subject to vulnerability so they ask nations to follow this same trusting attitude and know full well our response time will be tempered by delay as we plod to the United Nations to get permission and alliances to do what we have already said we would do on our own. This is political cowardice that encourages risky behavior by tin horn dictators. A swift decisive strike convinces the thugs that the chance they will get away with even a small victory is slim. They are only emboldened when they know the risk is low, the response questionable and the punishment negligible.

A country where no one is safe is a country like Iraq where self imposed militia can possess weapons but individual citizens cannot without an allegiance to a mob. A means of defense for an individual is a piece of property that he uses when the government cannot respond to an immediate threat. It is his tool of survival for a situation that requires his self reliance. It is not for anyone or any agency to deny this fundamental protection. The chance that he may not use this means of protection carelessly or improperly could be applied to any property such as chain saws, power tools and automobiles. Most property can have a danger risk if it is not understood or used properly. One that can respond adequately to the initiation of force is in a hierarchy that makes the use of other property meaningless if outlawed.

Consider the consequences of a law that created an agency that could infiltrate your home whether you were a gun owner or not. Only random intense investigations could confirm you were gun free. Why would they take your word you were unarmed? Today’s police officer searches you for weapons upon arrest. An agency with ensuring arms are not possessed ,must search at random and extensively any and all citizens. A suspected owner whether guilty or innocent would be subject to search and seizure. And the criminals could and would pose as “authorities “ to acquire what would be valuable , hard to acquire by other means and hence a new and profitable black market would materialize. The thieves would be rampant with the knowledge any house was fair game for looting as was proven in Australia. All dictators acquired the weaponry of those who could form a resistance that would establish protection for the individual and negate the absolute power of the regime. This is the unmistakable pattern of the conquest oriented throughout history. Arm the citizenry as armies and police to protect the power of the rulers but allow no private citizen to own a weapon to protect his own interests. For the private citizen is dispensable but the regime charged with protecting the private citizen is not. What is wrong with this picture/

The land of the free will not be free if the government takes away the right of self defense, the right to own personal protection devices and ultimately as a consequence the right to life. In a world where terrorists could infiltrate and kill ,individual Americans must be able to armed. If the United States needs nuclear and conventional deterrents from aggression what gives political leaders the arrogance to think individual Americans should be denied this option for their personal safety and welfare? If the politicians cannot trust the citizens to own weapons, what make them think the voter’s judgment is valid as they claim a political mandate from these voters? A world where private citizens are only taxpayers without any rights is not the American dream. And in this day and age of barbarian philosophies it is even more important to revive what once was and still could be a land of freedom with the right to self defense guaranteed for those who seek prosperity via productive endeavors. The consequences of losing this requires an unwillingness to compromise with those who believe what they cannot substantiate.