After the most recent mass killing at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, the usual suspects have been calling for gun control aka civilian disarmament. They seem to believe that if only we had tougher gun laws, some of these people or possibly all of these poor people who died, wouldn’t have. Some other cowardly politicians like our Dear Ruler, Barack Obama aka the Messiah say they merely want to hold a “conversation” about stricter gun laws. But never forget, “gun control” is not really about public safety or even saving lives, it’s about increasing government control over the populace.
The arrogance of civilian disarmament advocates is best shown by these comments by Josh Sugarmann, director of some outfit called the Violence Policy Center:
“There is no valid reason for civilians to have assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns and high-capacity magazines,” he said. “We have to start ratcheting down the firepower in civilian hands in the United States.”
First of all, who the hell does Josh Sugarmann think he is!? Just because some left-wing douchebag somewhere gave him a fancy title at a silly anti-gun group, he thinks he knows what’s best for everyone else. I own a semi-automatic AK-47 clone, a 12 gauge shotgun, and a .22 rifle. Personally, I don’t think that’s anywhere near enough firepower for me. I would like to add one of those semi-automatic pistols Joshy boy hates so much for example, among a few other weapons. I like having options to deal with whatever comes my way.
Obviously, Mr. Sugarmann has never read a history book as well. He has never read about the American Revolution where the first colonists to confront the British Army were equipped with privately owned firearms. This model of first using privately owned firearms to confront the forces of tyranny has been repeated all over the world with the two most recent examples of Libya and Syria. A well-armed populace is the best deterrence to tyranny. As the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq show*, even with the all the high technology weaponry the United States has deployed, that a determined populace can inflict major damage on an enemy with even the most primitive of weapons.
Now you maybe saying “it will never happen here”. Can we be sure about that? This is a country that in the past decade in the name of “national security” and “fighting terrorism” has embraced torture, enacted extremely broad wiretapping powers, and enshrined indefinite detention into law among other assaults on traditional Anglo-American civil liberties. That’s not to mention whatever abuses have come from the state in the name of the “war on drugs” and whatever other threats the state perceives are out there.
So my contribution to the discussion on gun control is simple:
1) My rights are not negotiable. I will NOT accept any restrictions on my right to own firearms. I will not agree to a licensing or registration scheme or limit on the number of guns I own. Nor will I comply with any laws that threaten my rights. I do not accept the authority of any government agency or official to limit them.
2) I will defend my rights by any means necessary. If anyone tries to take my guns, I will use lethal force to defend my rights. This is my line in the sand. I firmly believe that civilian disarmament is the precursor to greater tyranny and I will not compromise on this.
3) I believe that limiting gun ownership and disarming civilians will not decrease crime. In China, one of the most repressive tyrannies in the world, there was a recent mass killing. However, this horrendous attack was done with a knife, not a gun. The point is that evil and disturbed people will find a way to do their nefarious deeds, with or without gun control. Weapons are just tools; it is the person who kills. I do not believe it is humanly possible or to completely eliminate evil from human nature so we will always have people who will kill other people. The role of the state is to ensure they are punished.
This issue is the classic question that has dogged humanity since the Enlightenment. Do we desire liberty or do we desire security? I will pick the uncertainty of liberty over the stifling false security of tyranny.
*The Afghanistan and Iraq examples are not meant to show solidarity or sympathy with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc; but are cited purely for illustrative purposes.