This is a long one so you don’t have to read it all at once.
Okay, here goes nothing…
While the instances of multi-casualty violence that have swept the United States within the last decade or so are indeed very horrible, I don’t think that fanatical gun control would solve the problem. I imagine that it would, if we are not careful, create another, even less savory problem: tyranny.
Tyranny exists whenever the State has more power than the People. It follows, then, that in order to preclude the introduction of tyranny, the power of the People must either equal or exceed that of the State. Well then, how do you equalize power between the State and the People? How do you equalize power between any two groups? You give them the same level of strength, so that neither one can get out of hand. Well, in what form does strength come in this instance? Ultimately, the State doesn’t have any strength unless it has military strength. That is, the ability to use deadly force.
Deadly force, in today’s day and age, comes most saliently in the form of firearms. More specifically, it comes in the form of rifles. Therefore, if the People are limited in their ability to possess firearms, and rifles specifically (which is what the gun control movement aims to do), they will have less strength than the State, and the conditions of tyranny will have the opportunity to grow, for the State has nothing to keep it in check under such circumstances. I believe that the banning of any single kind of rifle sets a dangerous precedent, sows an insidious seed, to this end. Because such a ban, if successfully made law, would represent in our collective consciousness a disengagement from our commitment in this country to an unviolated freedom to be armed. The Second Amendment would lose its luster, and from there, who knows what else we’d be willing to let go of.
We could look at the issue in more detail. Tyranny isn’t likely to emerge in a land where the People are well-armed. That is, a land where the People are equal in military strength to their government. The government is either not willing to risk the kind of loss that would occur as a result of trying to become tyrannical over such a people, or, in the event that it does try to become tyrannical, finds itself well-matched or exceeded in strength by the People. At the very least, such a people stand a good chance at keeping the liberties that they have enjoyed, despite having had to shed blood in order to do so. At best, the government doesn’t even think about trying to run roughshod over such a people, and so neither tyranny nor warfare between State and People is ever able to manifest. Conversely, a people who are not well-armed, and therefore lack the ability to use deadly force, would be completely weak and daunted upon being faced with a strong, well-armed, governmental tyranny, unequipped to stem its evil, and therefore would find themselves at the utter mercy of it should it decide to rear its head in their day. An armed people, I reiterate, find themselves in no such dilemma.
See, the problem is that Americans today seem to see tyranny as a scenario so unlikely as to be practically impossible. They think that we are far too sophisticated these days to devolve into that barbaric condition. I would ask them all, what makes today’s humans any more naturally virtuous than those who facilitated totalitarianism in the past? Are the servants of the State today infallible, insusceptible to the kinds of brutal passions that might have impelled, say, a Nazi, to participate in atrocity? Always when a totalitarian regime has acquired power, it has then sought to become the sole possessor of military might in the land over which it has gained power. This accomplishment is the very thing that enables the regime to become a totalitarian one. It is standard procedure in the totalitarian playbook to confiscate from the People their precious ability to wage a contest in arms against a tyrannical state. Because once that is accomplished, those tyrants are free to do as they please with those people, whatever that happens to be. Usually it’s not good. Would today’s American government refrain from committing atrocity if given the chance to do so with a poorly armed or unarmed populace? The likelihood that they would, according to the history books, and to current events, is low enough, and the stakes high enough, to warrant a dogged fight against gun control.
My fellow youth and everyone else reading this need to understand the importance of the Second Amendment. If we continue to trash it, by advocating for stricter and stricter gun laws, we may just end up the very victims of such laws, that is, the victims of bloodthirsty tyrants who are only willing to pick a fight with the defenseless, with those who have been disarmed. So, remember what I have explained here, and talk about it with others too if you yourself have understood it to be true. And remember, any state that wants you to be less powerful than it is an unfriendly state.
By Sha’Kim Bush
Thank you for reading!
Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org for questions, comments, and work
This post is also available on my website, here: https://shakimsblogdotnet.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/a-criticism-of-gun-control/