Gun Control, Gun Violence, Background Checks and Freedom

[Mr VJP]

When people talk about guns in the aftermath of a public shooting tragedy, they argue about what “we” should do about guns in America.

“We should limit the capacity of magazines. No one needs the ability to fire off hundreds of rounds.”

 “We should ban assault rifles. No one needs that kind of gun. It was designed for the military.”

“We should stop people from buying body armor. No one needs that kind of protection.”

“We should prevent the ‘mentally unstable’ from getting access to guns.”

If you’re saying stuff like that, you must have a gnome in your pocket.

Who is this “we?” You and your tiny vote? Is it you and your elected representatives in Congress—those morally upright do-gooders who have an approval rating hovering around 20%? Is it you and them? 

When you say “we” should control guns, what you’re effectively saying is that “they” should control guns. After all, unless you’re a legislator or a law enforcement officer, you won’t be writing the laws or enforcing the laws or controlling the guns. Someone else will be doing that. And he or she will have a gun, or be standing in front of someone who does.

Who will decide who is mentally unstable? Not you.

Who will decide how many bullets you need or how much protection you need? Not you.

They will take care of that for you. You will be powerless to stop them. You will be powerless to do anything but scream and shout and “protest.” And be careful, because if you scream and shout too much, they might declare you mentally unstable. Who would stop them? Who could? Not you.

Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore gave an emotional speech on television about the need for more gun control laws. Moore specializes in films about big business and state corruption. If Americans agreed tomorrow to peacefully turn their guns over to the state, would this corruption end? Would the global corporations, foreign interests, and extremely wealthy men stop influencing public policy?

Of course not.

Moore was also a vocal supporter of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, which criticized the “one percent” of Americans who control almost half of the nation’s wealth.  The “one percent” are no doubt responsible for a great deal of injustice and obviously, they play a major role in state corruption.  If the “one percent” controls the state, they also control the majority of its guns by proxy. After all, doesn’t America—if Moore and others are to be believed—go to war primarily to protect the financial interests of the “one percent?”

People say they want “equality.”  Well, guns are great equalizers.

It’s not important for citizens to own guns so they can go hunting or sport shooting. Self-defense is a good reason to own a gun, but it’s not the most important reason. The most important reason for citizens to own guns is as a deterrent against state corruption and tyranny. The state doesn’t fight with swords or magic wands. It fights with guns. Americans need assault rifles precisely because they were designed for the military. Americans need guns because without them, Americans can never do what the nation’s founding fathers did. Without guns, Americans will never again be able to say ENOUGH in a way that matters.  Sure, they’ll be able to scream and shout and protest. But, what happens to protesters when they are confronted with superior firepower? Eventually, they go home or they go to jail. What else can they do? They accomplish nothing, because they have no power that matters. The “one percent” stays in charge. Guns even the odds in favor of the “ninety-nine percent.”

Mao Zedong famously wrote that, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” He was right. Violence is golden. Giving the state complete control of that power means giving one hundred percent of the power to the “one percent” who controls the corrupt state.

Men without guns are at the mercy of men who have guns. If the state controls all of the guns, the people are at the mercy of the state. All they can do is plead. Men who are not allowed access to the means to challenge tyranny are no longer free men. They are subjects, possibly even slaves. A country where the people have no power that matters can no longer call itself a free country.  A state where the people must rely on the benevolence of a small, all-powerful ruling class that maintains a complete monopoly on violence is a police state.

The police state controls the guns, and they use the guns to control you.

Gun control advocates are, in effect, advocating a police state.

I think we should start calling them out on it. I think we should start referring to them as “Police State Advocates,” because a police state is essentially what they are asking for.

Americans today are distracted by superficial ideas about what freedom means. To many, “freedom” means legalizing marijuana and same-sex marriage. None of those “freedoms” threaten the police state.

By all means—our handlers must snicker—get stoned and marry your gay boyfriend if that makes you feel “free.” Just don’t stand up to our ever-expanding and intrusive authority, or threaten our financial interests. Give us your guns, and never say ENOUGH in any way that matters.

It’s for the best, you see. We don’t want you to hurt yourselves, or each other. 

Jack Donovan