What did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Ted Kennedy have in common? Other than having killed 50,000,001 people between them, they all wisely recognized that a disarmed population is an obedient population, ready to be buttfucked government-style. It is no great mystery why political leaders who preach equality prefer their downtrodden tax monkeys be disarmed. Less obvious is why any civilian would support the faggotry of being forcefully and permanently disarmed. It requires tremendous faith in the state’s forever benevolent use of firearms, particularly when that sentiment is clearly not reciprocated to him. The great lengths these political eunuchs go through to bend the truth and twist language to support their overlord’s quest for a monopoly on gun ownership, 1984 style, only muddles the mystery.
1. “The NRA thinks civilians should be allowed to own missiles and explosives!”
If we assume that “Shall not be Infringed” wasn’t written on Opposite Day, Congress technically cannot restrict the civilian use of any weapons including intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles and chemical weapons. Americans would stockpile them and turn the streets into all the 80s action films combine. They would drive multimillion dollar M1 Abrams tanks and settle disputes with exchanges of nuclear artillery. The Columbine assholes would have bought a stealth bomber and then really fucked some shit up. And you can just picture camouflaged militiamen crafting increasingly witty one-liners after schools and nursery homes erupt into climatic mushroom clouds.
Obviously we don’t want this. So while we are ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment by the desired outcome rather than the intended one, we might as well scale down the right to bear arms to ownership of weapons that would minimize the risk of mass murder. We’ve all seen James Bond movies, so we know what those villains are capable of.
Yet once it is conceded that the escalating destructive power of military weapons is too great for civilians (but never the state, for some reason), the state continues to narrow the range of weapons accessible to us until we’re are left to defend against criminals with silverware. We can count on the fact that the Left ultimately wants to completely disarm the civilian population because they have consistently done this in every country where they have been empowered to do so, revealing that only political impediments and not self-restraint prevents them from doing the same in the US. For them, passing gun laws is like the guys on 4chan who fap to Chloe Moretz pictures and trap porn—deep down they know it’s wrong, but once they start they’re never going to stop.
Nonetheless, both sides seem to agree: it is reasonable to draw the line somewhere, so where is a “reasonable” place to draw it?
In response, I propose a rule: civilians should have unlicensed access to the same weapons used by police officers; no more, no less. Tanks, plutonium, anthrax, F-22s, cruise missiles, grenades, and doomsday devices will all remain off limits to civilians but if the police determine that body armor, armored vehicles, selective fire SBRs, tasers, suppressors, and 30 round magazines are necessary to defend against the worst criminals or violent mobs then civilians shouldn’t be denied the same protection. If the police decide that the danger of some weapons outweighs the benefits of their use, they will forfeit these weapons themselves and civilians should trust their judgment as civil society’s violence specialists.
But if they tell you that you can’t use certain weapons because they are unsafe, but then they continue to use them, the “duh” part of your brain should probably be asking why, and the answer better not be that LEOs are a class of highly trained, advanced ubermenchen who never misuse their weapons or abuse their power. Let’s not forget that half these guys barely graduated high school.
You might respond that the cops need special weapons (the kind that actually work) because while everyone else is running out of crime scenes they go running in (5-30 minutes later). That’s usually true , but it’s also true that civilians are usually there first, and disarmed if Michael Moore gets his way. Criminals tend not to go looking for guys in blue uniforms to attack, generally preferring non-police officer victims instead. But the problem of where to draw the line is a non sequitur when coming from the likes of Michael Bloomberg who thinks even carry permits for handguns is a sign of the end times. With all undue respect to him, I’ll believe it’s safe to walk the streets of NYC unarmed when the NYPD demonstrates their confidence in gun control by doing the same in their gun free zone. If they need guns because they’re worried about criminals smuggling in “illegal guns” from elsewhere, civilians are equally exposed to this danger. It is doubtful even a national ban would eliminate this problem given that the state can’t even keep drugs and weapons out of its own gay dungeon facilities.
2. “The Second Amendment is Outdated!”
When people aren’t being distracted by my dashing good looks and undeniable charm, they inform me that the Second Amendment is outdated. When it was written, we only had single shot muskets and rifles. Reloading them involved several steps and took a minute to complete. The founders could not anticipate an era of semiautomatic firearms and magazines. Presumably even they would have recognized the importance of limiting civilian access to such weapons and would have modified the Constitution accordingly had they been able to anticipate the technological developments that made possible every Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ever.
Back when cutting edge firearm technology was a single shot muzzle more six feet long, that’s also all that the state had. Man for man, the state had no particular advantage over an armed civilian force in 1775. As such, single shot rifles were an effective civilian defense, which is why the British tried to seize these allegedly primitive guns at Lexington. Today, with militarized local police departments who storm peoples’ homes armed with automatic short barrel rifles, even a semiautomatic M-4 and a 30 round magazine can be outgunned.
But let’s assume Thomas Jefferson’s corpse appears and tells us straight up that the Second Amendment is outdated. Does Congress just proceed to pass whatever endless stream of gun control laws Chuck Schumer can pull out of his gaping asshole like never-ending anal beads of fascism? If an Amendment to the Constitution were truly outdated there happens to be a process for addressing this, and you may have heard of it: It’s called a Constitutional Amendment. They are laid out in Article V by the supposedly shortsighted Founding Fathers. They allowed for changes to the Constitution over time, but change was to come from the states, not the authoritarian power-grabbers who hold national office.
The original Constitution has been amended 27 times including the Bill of Rights. The Constitution had to be amended to allow blacks to vote. It had to be amended to ban alcohol, and then amended again to legalize it fourteen joyless years later. Yet it’s unimaginable that the Congress of today would ever bother passing prohibition through the amendment process. Instead, it passes whatever laws it pleases and takes the chance that the puppets it put on the Supreme Court will rationalize these laws as consistent with the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause. Of course, these clauses were written by the Founders to secretly allow the government to do whatever it wants (according to those who want the government to do whatever it wants).
Which brings us to the present, where Democrats continue to threaten more gun control, and Americans respond by hurriedly grabbing up available guns like the last few donuts at a Jenny Craig meeting.
3. “Guns Only Exist for the Purpose of Killing People!”
You say that like it’s a bad thing. A civilized man is not someone who has never killed anybody; he is someone who never killed anybody who didn’t need killing. It shouldn’t take a J.D. to see that there is an important distinction between self-defense and the initiation of violence and that guns can just as easily facilitate the former. In a gun free world, it is clear who wins a fight between a 250 pound attacker or multiple attackers, and an old lady who has to defend herself with a knife or a baseball bat because the thought of her owning a .380 causes Carolyn McCarthy and Diane Feinstein to shit themselves into a totalitarian frenzy. Even if the law prevents the perp from buying a firearm, he can kill her with his fist, or even grab her weapon and turn it on her. Let her arm herself with a gun and it increases her odds of not dying in a pool of her own blood. Either way, Nancy Pelosi will sit obliviously in her donation-funded mansion surrounded by her taxpayer-funded armed bodyguards and crates of Botox.
Gun control does for society what it did for the hijacked flights on September 11. It allows a handful of assholes with box cutters to threaten 100 unarmed individuals. A single, armed pilot could stop what a trillion dollar defense budget couldn’t. Guns are an equalizer of power which is why even if we could live in a world without guns I wouldn’t want to. They allow the physically weak or the outnumbered to fend off attackers. A bullet to the groin prevents rape in a way a rape whistle never could. And if guns only existed for attacking people then police officers wouldn’t need them. Arguing that guns can only be used for evil is like saying I can only use my car to run over puppies. While I admit that laying tire tracks on puppies is a fun activity for libertarians like myself—second only to lighting homeless people on fire—I’ve been told cars can be used for good as well.
Because gun control protects no one, Bloomberg, who aspires to become the droopy face of nationwide civilian disarmament, has had to institute a “Stop and Fondle” policy to combat all the criminals who are attracted to his gun free prison island and its outer boroughs, where the equivalent of one Aurora shooting occurs every few days. He blames Ohio and other states for allowing the sale of some of the guns criminals are using without questioning why these criminals prefer to commit their crimes in New York over Ohio in the first place.
4. “The ‘Militia’ in the Second Amendment Refers to the National Guard!”
All of the rights bundled into the Bill of Rights are protections of individual liberty against state power. If the Second Amendment had been guaranteeing a power of the state rather than the rights of citizens, it would have been the only one to do so. Indeed such an amendment would have been unnecessary given that the power of the state to maintain an army is addressed elsewhere, in Article I Section 8, and it isn’t called the militia either. Curiously, the Second Amendment refers to the right of “the People,” an odd choice of wording for libertarian revolutionaries to describe the state or national governments, especially since they even mention the states directly in Amendments IX and X, and in the latter address “states” and “the people” as two distinct entities.
Nor does exercising the right to bear arms require participation in a militia. The Second Amendment merely acknowledges that the existence of a militia requires armed civilians the same way that making bread requires the freedom to buy wheat. As to the notion that the militia refers to state armies rather than the US Military, the National Guard was created in 1917, which my calculations indicate actually came after 1787. And as a defense of the individual states, the National Guard no longer exclusively serves this purpose, having been nationalized and now treated as a war-fighting auxiliary force of the US Armed Forces, unlikely to defend states against any tyranny at the national level.
As a defense against government, some argue that firearms no longer serve this purpose as they are worthless against a military that possesses fighters, bombers, and nuclear and chemical weapons. If guns were of little use in combat, I doubt our own military would own millions of them and employ them in every war, including the ones we used to fight countries with real-deal air forces and armies. We spend trillions on tanks, missiles, drones, aircraft carriers, and submarines, only to have Seal Team Six kill Osama with a 30 cent round of 556 NATO. If guns were worthless, the dictators and socialists who make up the United Nations wouldn’t be so obsessed with monopolizing them.
5. “Military Style Rifles Are Only Useful for Killing Several People at Once!”
Some Democrats have supported concealed carry for civilians, recognizing that (1) the right of effective self-defense should not be exclusive to police officers, and (2) civilians also have to leave their houses once in a while. Since support for gun control has declined, however, the newest ploy by the anti-gunners is: Okay, keep your stupid guns, but we are getting rid of magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. After all, mass murderers always think to themselves, “Man, killing ten people right now would be meh, but killing eleven would just be awesome.” In particular, there has been bipartisan opposition to civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles cosmetically similar to the ones the military uses.
Detachable 30 round magazines are not the only target—so are pistol grips, foregrips, telescopic or folding stocks, barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, muzzle breaks, and flash hiders. Don’t know what some of these features are? No problem, neither do the people who want them banned.
But putting the burden of proof on the gun owner as is the basis of our legal system, why would a civilian ever need to shoot more than one person at once? Criminals would never attack a victim in groups of two or more, that just isn’t fair fightin’. And can you imagine if the city streets were controlled by groups of people—gangs of criminals if you will—banded together to commit crime and protect their territory? And it’s not like this country ever sees riots in the streets or other forms of mob violence, and certainly not in the states where 30 rounds and detachable magazines are already illegal.
And when you are attacked (by one criminal and no more), the conditions and environment are sure to be such that ten shots fired will eliminate the threat, guaranteed, with no misses due to poor lighting, obstacles, user error, or other impediments.
It is said that assault weapons must be banned for safety. Yet a government that seeks safety and one that seeks absolute power are completely indistinguishable in practice, and I have no reason to believe that the latter would not adopt the appearance of the former as a matter of expediency, using safety as a pretense to minimize mass opposition to the criminalization of liberty. While a naked power grab implicates politicians as the sociopathic control freaks they are, a political safety agenda implicates our citizens as a group of probable criminals who cannot be trusted. Since gun laws are in no way correlated with less violence, this does more than inform us on the efficacy of gun laws—this informs us on who people actually are.
Econ Joe is a PhD student in economics.
About Econ Joe
Econ Joe is a PhD student in economics.